 Okay, good evening everyone we're just waiting for participants to arrive. So, welcome along to you all and we're hosting a live webinar tonight on Greater Cambridge Local Plan, our first proposals, this is our fourth webinar session we've already done and three others and you can see them on our website we'll give you details of how to access them later on. Today's session is all about climate change and water so very apt subject at the moment just from the COP26 but also from our own perspective of bringing some of the climate change stuff into our own local plan. And what I'm going to do is we'll go around the screen we've got a really really good panel for here tonight we've got some of our consultants who've been helping work up some of the policies in the plan, we've got some of the team here and so hopefully it'll be really interesting and enjoyable session and we'll give you a chance to really get involved and ask some questions pointing in the right direction of where we're going to be able to feed into the plan. So, I'll make a start now and I'm just going to remove my screen share and hopefully you should be able to see us all so welcome to you all unfortunately we can't see you. And we're doing the webinar is an hour long and we're going to try and make it as interactive as possible so you can ask questions all the way through and it is being recorded so what we can do is we can have that up on our website afterwards so you will be able to rewatch it and we will pick up other questions that we haven't been able to answer during session and we'll put them on our FAQs on the website where you can find them there. And I'm going to introduce the panel now and I'll go around to them individually and they can introduce themselves in fact so I'm going to go around by my screen. Anna. Hello everyone, my name is Anna Mackenzie I work with Etude and I worked on formulating some of the buildings policies that we've recommended within our evidence base to support the local plan. Thank you Anna and it's really lovely to have you along this evening thanks for coming. Emma. Davis I'm principal sustainability officer for the Greater Cambridge shared planning service so working with colleagues to develop new climate change policies. Welcome along this evening as well. Marina. Hi there, I'm Marina good year. I'm a senior project officer at Bioregional I've been working with Anna and Emma to put together the evidence base and zero carbon and how that might be defined and I'll be talking about that more in a moment. Thank you very much Marina welcome along tonight thanks for coming and john who's a dad at this by now webinar and I think. Hello, John Dixon planning policy manager for the Greater Cambridge planning service and I helped pull the plan together and use this information that they helped to prepare. Thanks John for being this one as well. Nancy. Hello, my name is Nancy Kimberly I'm a principal planning policy officer, and I've been working on the water topic area, the local plan. Thank you Nancy and great to have you and last but not least, Elliot will come to you. Hi good evening everybody. My name is Elliot Gill work for a consulting firm called stand tech. I've been working with Nancy on the integrated water management study for Cambridge. Thanks, and thank you for joining us again tonight. And behind the scenes we've got and we've got will meet and without will we won't be doing this at all because he's running all of the technology tonight. And for us to hopefully fingers crossed we can we can stay and stay online live with you my name is Paul for those of you don't know me I'm assistant director for strategy economy across both councils so part of the plan making team and been running these webinars as well so without further ado I'm going to share my screen it's going to give you a quick overview of what the session is going to look like and then I'm going to hand over to colleagues. This session we're going to talk a little bit about the role of planning and responding to climate change. And then get some get into some detail around that zero carbon and plan making. We are going to do a little interactive session in the middle we have run a couple of these already. It will be using something called mentee for those of you. And then we'll finish off with water. And then we'll have about 15 minutes for an actual panel Q&A later on as well. Please do as I said put your questions in the chat and some of the team will answer them as we're going along as well. And so I'm going to hand over to Emma now he's going to start the presentation. Okay, thanks Paul. So I thought I would just start off this evening by giving you a bit of an overview of the role of planning and responding to climate change and what we've tried to cover in the first proposals document. So we really make sure that the local plan included a kind of wide range of policies that recognize the role that the planning and place making has to play in responding to climate change so thinking about reducing carbon emissions, but also thinking about kind of climate resilience and adapting to the changing climate that we know is going to happen over the next few years. So in the first proposals document we've got a section on climate change and also water, and that covers a wide range of policy areas which we've tried to kind of illustrate on this slide. So we've got policies that are there to support renewable energy generation. So that's going to be a really important aspect of getting, I suppose, greater Cambridge as a whole so Cambridge and South to net zero carbon. So we wanted to have quite a supportive policy approach within the document around that. We've also got within here kind of a new area for us which we haven't really touched on before in planning policy, but we've got some policies around looking at using materials that have low embodied carbon, which is another really important element of net zero carbon it's not just about energy used in buildings, but it's about how you construct those buildings and materials that you use to construct those buildings. We've also we're looking to kind of develop a policy on circular economy, which is again another area which we've not really touched on before within planning, but certainly an area that we think is worthy of inclusion in the local plan and developing something around you know how the built environment become can become more circular. What I would say on embodied carbon that is quite a new and an emerging area kind of nationally, as well as locally. So I would say what we've got at the moment is a kind of placeholder about reporting on embodied carbon, but recognising that that's a kind of rapidly moving areas so it may be as we're developing the plan. Things like targets around embodied carbon might become clearer. So that might be an area that we can develop in a little bit more detail as we go through the plan making process. We've also got a net zero carbon buildings policy within the first proposals document. It's quite a detailed emerging policy because we felt it needed to be. And we've got Marina and Anna here who are going to go into that in a little bit more detail shortly in terms of how we developed that policy and why we developed that policy. The fourth role as well for planning is it's important that the plan supports the switch to sustainable transport and also low emissions vehicles. So you've probably already heard in some of previous webinars around the spatial strategy that we've developed in terms of where we're looking to locate growth, and how the carbon associated with transport has been a really integral part of informing the spatial strategy. So what we're trying to do is focus development on locations that are already well served by sustainable mode of transport, and also kind of encourage people to get out of their car more and use other modes of transport, particularly things like cycling. So that's been a really important element that's kind of been integral to shaping the first proposals document. So we're looking at setting some very stringent standards in the plan around water efficiency. And we've got Nancy and John who are going to cover that in a little bit more detail a little further along in this presentation. And then the final kind of area that we look at it's a really important one not to overlook. I think when you start talking about net zero carbon. It's very easy to forget that our climate is going to change because of the emissions that we've already released into the atmosphere. So another really important policy area for us is around climate change adaptation and making sure that our communities adapt to the changing climate that we are already starting to see, to be perfectly honest. So we've got policies within the plan or emerging policies around the role of green infrastructure, the role of sustainable drainage, and also fairly a new area that's become quite important over the last few years, looking at the issue of overheating in new buildings, which is becoming increasingly apparent and looking at ways that we can design out those risks of overheating in buildings, but also thinking about the spaces around those buildings and how we can perhaps green our built environment more to help combat issues such as the urban heat island effect. So I think that further ado now I'm going to hand over to Marina and Anna and they're going to take you through some of our net zero carbon evidence base and a little bit more detail. Thanks very much Emma. That was a great intro, and definitely sets us up well for what we're going to go into. And so, just to recap, we are the consultants who produced the policy approach and based on specific approach to defining what net zero carbon can and should mean for the local plan. So just to introduce ourselves and by regionals and environmental charity with experience in all round sustainability sustainable construction and policymaking all the way up to local to international level. Etude is an engineering firm with expertise in energy construction and architecture. We also were joined by two other organizations in this work, who were of immense help and those are carrying Brown who are quantity surveyors and cost consultants with experience advising central and local government on the cost implications of the transition for low carbon or zero carbon and also mode who are transport planners. Right, so our task was essentially to try to give greater Cambridge shared funding service the information it needs about carbon to make decisions about where to allow that new growth to happen. So what are the implications in terms of building size and transport carbon, and also thinking a little bit about about landscape as well. And secondly, what kind of local plan policies within existing planning powers would enable that transition to a zero carbon greater Cambridge, which is the the overall goal. Zero carbon greater Cambridge is going to have to fit within a zero carbon or net zero carbon UK as a whole. So, next slide please. I wanted to before we dive into the specifics to just give everyone an overview of the full suite of tasks that we went through. And in the diagram, the ones marked in orange are the ones that we will or can cover parts about today. And but I'll just run through these. So firstly, we wanted to define what does net zero carbon mean both for the whole area and for individual buildings. Why do we need it. How do we measure it and what powers does the local plan really have to make it possible to enable it. And secondly, exploring the different levels of carbon emissions that will occur or that we can expect to occur depending on where the local plan allows the new growth to happen. Thirdly, what kind of carbon reduction targets should we be aiming for for greater Cambridge and what kind of standards new buildings and energy would enable this and I let that work. And fourthly, the technical feasibility of building zero carbon new buildings. Now, as in, there's lots of people calling for this and a lot of developers that are kind of terrified and thinking that it's not possible so we wanted to test that. And next we wanted to look at the cost implications of building to those standards which we identified. Task F was then exploring whether there's any credibility or use in the offsetting concept whether that could form a planning lever to get us towards that net zero carbon greater Cambridge as a whole. And then finally we did do some stakeholder engagement as well with some small groups about coming up to a year ago now I think from all of that we developed a sort of sweeter policy suggestions which Emma and John and the others have been honing and working out what they can use and implement. And there is also a non technical summary of all of this work available online as well if anyone's wanting to dig in a bit more into it after this webinar. So that's that that was our work that's our full set of tasks and next slide please. Thanks very much so firstly, why do we need to achieve net zero carbon in the UK and greater Cambridge and individual developments. Firstly, as Emma has already touched upon, we've already been putting a lot of carbon in the atmosphere climate change is already happening. There has been a one degree Celsius rise in average temperatures today, compared to the pre industrial period. And I will cover this a little bit more detail later there is a limited amount of carbon that we can meet between now and a certain date before we will tip the planet over a really dangerous level of climate change. Responding to that danger, the international Paris agreement in 2015. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UK is a signatory to that that commitment, and commits the UK and all of the signatories to limit climate change to well below two degrees Celsius of global average temperature increases. And, as I mentioned, on one degree that is already gone into a try to attempt a limit of 1.5. And the second really interesting part about the Paris agreement is that it contains the equity principle. And this means that countries like the UK, which are richer and have more technological ability, have a greater responsibility to pursue deeper and quicker cuts to our carbon emissions specifically carbon emissions per person. Under that agreement the UK also has to report its annual greenhouse gas emissions. And that is done by the Committee on Climate Change. In the UK, we've had legislation about carbon reduction since about 2008 with the Climate Change Act, which committed the UK to reduce its carbon emissions by 80% between 1990 to 2050. And that was updated in 2019 to be net zero carbon. So that's this target everyone is chasing. And that's where all of this stems from really at a more local level. The local authorities of Greater Cambridge have declared climate emergency, and South Cambridge in particular has has as part of that made a pledge that all strategic decisions, including planning decisions will be in line with that shift to zero carbon. So those are the drivers, and if we could have the next slide please. Great. So then what does net zero carbon mean. So firstly, and carbon gets is used as a sort of catchall term for a few different gases, there are a range of greenhouse gases. They are emitted in different amounts and they have different climate impacts, and carbon dioxide being the main one as you can see in the sort of pie chart on the top right there. And other other greenhouse gases are emitted in smaller amounts and that can sometimes have bigger effects per kilogram emitted. So at a global level, essentially net zero carbon means greenhouse gases in equals greenhouse gases out so that human caused emissions of greenhouse gases are balanced by an equal amount of removals and those removals could be by green infrastructure, or it could be in the future, maybe there might be technologies for that as well but they don't exist yet in a scalable way. So it's all a scale. So if you want to have a net zero carbon place building organizational person, then that place building organizational person needs to prevent or remove an equal amount of greenhouse gas, as it emits. And to understand that we need a carbon accounting methodology. So it's basically who's carbon is it anyway who's responsible for what and how do we keep track of that. To explore this topic we reviewed a number of methodologies there are methodologies for organizational carbon accounting, and then there are a number of methodologies for the carbon accounts of a whole area like Greater Cambridge like like Cambridge City like South Cambridge and you can see a list of the ones that we reviewed there. And there are also methodologies and guides to try to account for the carbon emissions of an individual building as well. And again, you've got a list of them there, and they are sort of more or less effective on different topics. And we weren't reviewing these to try to say, you should use this method or you should use that method but more to look at the consensus of what should or shouldn't be included. So we looked at the local areas carbon emissions, and or buildings carbon emissions, if we're trying to get that to net zero and be able to track that. And so, yeah, we looked at all of these together. And I'll just explain the diagram on the bottom right. That diagram is from the GHG protocol for cities which is possibly possibly the best recognized local area carbon accounting method, and it divides these into three scopes. One is the emissions coming from directly within your area, and that can come from a variety of sources so that's burning fuel, but either for transport or for the buildings, it can come from agriculture waste wastewater industrial processes scope to is your grid supplied energy which probably comes partly from generation inside your area and partly from outside it. The other three is stuff that your activities will influence, but which you didn't emit directly. And so, essentially those three scopes are reflecting how responsible you are for each set of carbon emissions. So that's the scopes and methodologies. If we have the next slide please. So, long story short, I'm not going to go into the detail of each of those methodologies, they do differ in terms of which gases and which sources they include. And but our consensus, and also relating back to what the local plan can do about it, was that the definition of a net zero carbon grater Cambridge should include all greenhouse gases and their sources in scope one and scope two. We should consider and seek to reduce scope three, but we shouldn't really expect to reduce this to zero with certainty, and that's because there's just so much estimation involved in working out what your scope three emissions will be. It's tracking the data is just, it's close to impossible to do it with real robustness in a way that you could hold developers to account for it put it that way. Secondly, this definition of a net zero carbon grater Cambridge should be principally based on real reductions. We shouldn't just be throwing money outside the county to make it someone else's problem and say oh they're going to reduce or remove emissions on our behalf. It should be based on real reductions, this because there isn't the scope to actually achieve enough as many offsets as we would need. So those offsets if we do use any, they should never be from outside the UK, because that wouldn't count towards the UK's net zero carbon status really. And to achieve that. Essentially, we need new buildings to be net zero carbon in their energy use. Now, we need them not to use fossil fuel on site. We need them to be located to minimize the transport emissions and to enable low carbon or zero carbon vehicles for basically any car use that you can expect there to be. So they need to be, this is a kind of tangential point, but they need to probably be located to try and not to damage the, the major carbon sinks the greater Cambridge already has so if there's feet land or if there's a forest that could be continually removing carbon avoid building on those. And then finally, keep track of and take steps to reduce the embodied carbon, and that's the, the carbon that was involved in producing transporting and constructing the materials to make those buildings. Because that mostly falls within scope three. There are a lot of other steps that will need to be taken, not directly relating to new buildings. And those are kind of listed at the bottom in terms of massively upscaling renewables, large scale renewables, making that happen within greater Cambridge to a reasonable extent. Investing in transport infrastructure and restoring green infrastructure as well. But part covering buildings is in the bullet points. So, next slide please. And I'll try to be fairly quick on this one. So, and there are a number of duties and powers that apply to what we're the local plan is meant to achieve really. And there are powers but also limits those powers in terms of what it's allowed to do. In terms of reducing carbon emissions so number one planning compulsory purchase act requires that we have policies that as a whole. We know that the development and use of land contribute to the mitigation of an adaptation to climate change. So that's the biggest driver of the planning duties in the national planning policy framework. We also need to apparently take a proactive approach, which is in line with the climate change act so with the climate change act which now requires net zero by 2050 across the country. So these things we are empowered to set reasonable requirements for renewables in new builds, and also energy efficiency standards that are better than that of the national building regulations. Energy efficiency standards is, while the devils in the detail really it is defined in that act as standards endorsed by the Secretary of State currently only the building regulations calculations count towards that so we can require improvements on those. In the gray area whether we can require other methods to account for the energy use and carbon in the building, the extent of what is reasonable hasn't really been tested. So, I mean, from my point of view as an environmental consultant, my instinct would be the reasonable thing is net zero, but it hasn't been legally tested. So on that spatial distribution of growth as we've discussed is is a key planning power, and we can require developer payments towards new infrastructure and mitigation of development impacts through the community infrastructure levy or section 106 agreements. However, all of the above have to be justified with robust evidence of need and being able to be implemented. So I think that is the end of my section I may be handing to Anna in just a moment. We have the next slide please. There we go. I'll hand over to Anna to talk about carbon budgets reductions and building specs. Thank you Marina, and hello everyone. So I'm going to try and explain briefly in about five minutes how we have ended up recommending and why we've recommended the targets within the net zero carbon buildings policies that we have. And to do that, I just wanted to sort of take you back to what Marina was saying and let's look at what are we really trying to achieve. And so as Marina said we're trying to achieve and as you will probably know, we're trying to limit global temperature rises to within one and a half and two degrees Celsius above pre industrial levels and based to that the UK has its net zero carbon by 2050 targets. And one of the things I really want to talk about today is the concept this concept of carbon budgets because it's so important to understand and it's in its and it's really a backbone to why we're suggesting the ambition of the building policy, and also the pace at which it's implemented, because getting to zero carbon by 2050 alone does not necessarily guarantee that we are Paris agreement aligned. So next, next slide please. So the IPCC and climate scientists have shown that there is a real direct proportion, there's a, there's a direct proportion between the cumulative carbon in the atmosphere and the temperatures surface temperatures they're seeing. So that's really useful because essentially we can get, we can understand if we want to limit to one and a half or two degrees how much carbon in the future in the atmosphere to get to that point. So next slide please. So the IPCC has worked out, we have a global carbon budget of 900,000 megatons for a 5050 chance of reaching 1.7 degrees is a little bit of uncertainty and so they give various statistics for different temperatures and different amounts but so as you can see 5050 chance of 1.7 is not exactly ambitious it's a bit give or take it's kind of fingers crossed. And the Tyndall Center has done some really amazing work on apportioning the UK and every local authority within it, it's share of that global carbon budget. Next slide please. So here we have a graph which shows the annual emissions so from between 2020 and 2450. So this is just a graphic, it's not indicative of anyone's particular pathway or but what it shows is that essentially you've got if we carry on emitting so we've got this horizontal line carrying on emitting at the same pace we are now and then we have a sort of fairly steep drop off in the mid 2030s. The area underneath the graph that represents the amount of carbon we've emitted. The new shading is the amount that go but the carbon budget of Greater Cambridge, all the orange isn't a carbon overspend. So Greater Cambridge for example it has 11 megatons of CO2 in its carbon budget that's that's the amount you can emit between now and any point in the future before you're contributing effectively more than 1.7 degrees. So at your annual emissions rate, that annual emissions rate was pre 2020 and these figures are from 2020 and you'd admit you'd end up using it by 2026 2027, if you don't reduce your carbon now. So that's I really wanted to make that clear. Next slide please. So what sort of trajectory should we be looking at. Well, if you were just looking at an annual reduction you'd probably be looking at something like 30 and a half percent per year or 50% every five years. And that would give you a trajectory that you can see on the left, but it's in practice quite unlikely that that's going to happen is such a big, you know, big drop so soon, you're probably more going to end up with a sort of backwards S curve of slower emissions and then faster faster emissions will be required but really that that curve can take any shape it any shape it provided the area underneath doesn't exceed the carbon budget. So that's just the point I wanted to make because clearly we can't just sort of wait and say, well we don't need to be zero carbon by 2050 we don't need to implement these zero carbon policies until the next local plan or maybe we could have a step approach between now and then to be kind to developers. If we want to be a Paris compliant we have to be ambitious with zero carbon policies now. And next slide please. And so, what do we need to do what buildings would need to do well. We have to stop burning gas now that's really important, we need to stop pushing that carbon into the atmosphere. So the alternatives are direct electrics at the moment the alternatives available right now and that that's also important. We need to be using technology that's available now and that's low carbon technology that's available now as direct electric heating and S or C pumps both of which use electricity. Of course there is electricity within the grid, and but this is the grid national grid is decarbonizing quite rapidly. And we have some really good predictions from the national grid to show that hopefully in future years maybe in the, even in the 2030s we're going to get to net zero carbon electricity. So it's an exclamation mark against direct electric heating, because that's just to show that it does use a lot more electricity than an S or C pump would, and therefore it puts more strain on the grid so some caution needs to be viewed around that. Next slide please. So the metrics that we're essentially we've essentially recommended going to the policy are a space heating demand of 15 to 20 kilowatt hours per meter squared per year. So essentially that just means very efficient building fabric means ultra efficient building fabric of approximately passive house levels. It's been recommended by the Committee on Climate Change. It's also recommended within the Letty Letty's definition of net zero carbon. And one of the practical and technical benefits of this. You're building kind of acts like a bit like a storage heater you can be really flexible about when you heat it. And that's really important because as we move towards an electrified economy. We're not going to be putting a lot more strain on the grid. The grid isn't currently at the where it needs to be so it's going to have to improve and ramp up. And if we, if we can even out those peak heat demands by different people's heating turning on at different times, we just enable that transition, much more than if we have less energy efficient building so all requiring more heat in those peak winter demands and those coldest times. So what we're looking at is the total energy use of building. So that's the amount of energy that's needed for everything. So, you know, your, your appliances your cooking your lighting, your hot water, and your heating. So it's everything. We've selected 35 kilowatt hours per meter square per year. That's in line with the Letty net this net zero definition, and the way they calculated that was, they really looked at the national at a national level how much electricity can the national grid provide. And they sort of worked out what share each home should be targeting. So there's a sort of science based reason to that figure. And it's low because it helps the grid reduces those peak demands on the grid. And finally, the third sort of key aspect of this in terms of operational carbon is achieving an energy balance. And simply that just means that the home or the building should generate as much energy renewable energy in a year as it consumes. And the benefits of that are in this. Yeah, thank you very much. This, this just shows that all those energy uses that you use in a building are balanced by the amount of renewable energy. And the benefits of that are we're contributing to renewable energy in the national grid which we need to do, but there's also some real benefits for homeowners as well. So they get to benefit they can use that electricity directly if they want to. And the people are probably going to end up moving over to electric cars so you can use them to charge your car and reduce energy bills, have some sort of export time potentially, and so many other benefits. And next slide please. So what we did is we did some modeling with pass-up house planning package. We used, we use that because it's been shown to be really sort of quite reliably predict how much the building will use in real life, as opposed to the compliance based modeling that you need for building regulations, which tend to not to have much correlation to how much building read is in real life. So we tested those metrics across four different buildings, and all these, these plans and these buildings are taken from planning applications that had been made within Greater Cambridge, and we just literally took them exactly as they were. Didn't make any amendments to them. So we did, we tested two different heat sources, heat pump and direct electric and you can see this is showing to the heat pump, but all those metrics we were able to achieve the target set with varying levels of fabric efficiency. There's an exclamation mark against the terrace house because that was a little bit more challenging to achieve things like normal windows do actually increase the heat loss quite a lot. And what we did find was that through optimizing certain design elements that you can, it's easier to meet the targets, it's also cheaper to meet the targets. And that's really something that's quite interesting really that we found. Next slide please. So this is these were, what's the results using a direct electric heating system. So again, we were able to achieve. Obviously the fabric didn't change so we're able to achieve that space heating demand target on the top. So it was not possible to meet the overall energy use intensive target using direct electric heating and that's because it uses three times as much electricity to heat your home and their source heat pumps do. So that overall energy use grew quite substantially. So the result is also harder to achieve that net zero balance. So if you're using more energy, you need to generate more energy to get that net zero balance and for this terrace house for example, because of that Dorma, and they are in the particular orientation of this home. So we were able to achieve that net zero balance on the site for that that type but I think one of the, I think what we found was if we're targeting 35 it really does kind of rule out indirectly direct electric heating. So people would almost certainly need to be installing. So that's where the heat pumps to get there. And yeah and that's it we did do the cost modeling to and we found we had some uplifts of between seven and 13%. We've also modeled this on other projects to and they've come in lower than that but I think one thing that was really really clear was changing the design and optimizing the design of the building form really has an impact on how much the uplift is. And so designers right from the beginning can minimize those costs, but the uplift required to meet those targets, just by paying some attention to how the building's designed and the details within it. And that's, that's the end of my part. Thank you very much for listening. Marina, that was incredibly interesting and really diesel and I know we run over a little bit but I think that it's really important to give that time I know that there's quite a lot of detail in there but you know this is all fairly new stuff, I'd say very new stuff. But it's something that we've really got to get a grip with and it's, it's, you know, this is the kind of the foundational work really we've heard a lot of conversation I suppose over cop 26 but this is the real work that's happening at bottom up level that really needs to start taking place and things that local government can actually do and put in place to start dealing with these issues so thank you for the presentation we will have got a little bit of an interactive session I'm happy to run over a little bit as well if people are happy to stay if you've got extra questions there's not a huge amount of questions coming through it's only a few of you tonight, and maybe it's the timing. So, we'll try and get through all of them I would think at the moment unless a big influx comes through. I'll give you a little bit of an interactive session for you now. And I said before, if you scan that QR code, or I think that on the next screen there's a, a details for men to meet if you go to men to meet and you put the code in scan that QR code, or you go to this code at the top there I think it's showing is that showing the little code there at the top panel. So you can see the web address and the code. Thank you guys that's helpful to know I can't see it because they zoom stuff is at the top of my screen so just to get you thinking about I mean it's really lifted up a level you've heard a lot of detail there but what we also need to know is how we can, you know, feed some of your thoughts into the plan and this is a question that we'd like to ask you really, before we move on to water. You know, this may be things that can be dealt with in planning system and maybe things that felt out without side of it but from your own perspectives and you know listening to some of the conversation about planning but also the fact, the kind of quite dark facts that we've got to get to net zero and how we might get there or might not get there. What do you think are the most important things that we can do to address climate change. Now I think if you put some of your thoughts into the men to meet that they will start popping up on my screen and we can just have a little discussion around them. I mean as I said we've run a couple of these over the last three or four sessions but we have had a lot of a bigger group really so there's not too much coming through I'll move straight on. I think there are some thoughts that from a high level perspective panel and things that are coming up. So net zero homes and we've talked about that a little bit. I think, and I think Emma touched upon this in terms of our strategy is designed around, you know, thinking about transport and thinking about the best places to put, you know, development to put growth but houses near jobs so people are reducing those, you know, those car journeys. Any thoughts on any of those in the panel? We were actually discussing the act now point before we started. And I think the short answer is we are, but plan making does take a long time in order to bring in standards like this, which go beyond the national standards set out in your national guidance. We need to test them and go through the local plan process which unfortunately does take a number of years, but Emma we are already taking action with our current plans and approaches to try and do what we can. Yeah, we are we're already we've already got policies and our plans that require carbon reduction that goes beyond current building regulations, but what we're already starting to see is a lot of developers already moving away from gas. Not all of them, but quite a lot of them are. So they're already starting to look at the use of air source heat pumps that sort of technology. There are already some developers out there that are referring to some of the standards that we've talked about as well so we're seeing people starting to use the letty standards. We're getting a lot more passive house developments coming forwards now as well. I think that's driven quite a lot by colleges and University of Cambridge. We're starting to see some of those standards we're starting to see embodied carbon in reported on and you know people are using there's the Reba climate challenge as well, which sets some targets so we are making progress. I would love to go further faster but as john says you know we do have to work within the plan making process. I think as well if I could also pick up on the retrofit and I've seen that there is a question in the Q&A about the local plan and retrofitting. What we found with the existing local plan for Cambridge where we have a retrofit policy. We're finding it really hard to actually implement through planning, because planning isn't really set up to deal with retrofit. It's kind of more of an issue for building control but it's not really properly picked up through building control either. And it's not an ideal system to use to deal with retrofit because a lot of the stuff that you do to retrofit a home doesn't require planning permission. But what I would say is I know that Cambridge City Council working actually the Bioregional are currently developing a retrofit guide to net zero carbon. We're publishing early part of next year a handbook for homeowners that will take you through how you can retrofit towards net zero carbon for some of the common house types and archetypes that we see in Cambridge. It's interesting also to see, I mean, you know, you make the distinction there with retrofitting and the power of planning policy and because this is an area that we do know it transcends a number of different places that need to be involved in this. And I think retrofit is one of those areas, but there's a big, you know, a big point around behavior change here, which is obviously not a planning issue. But again, it needs to be something that's considered in around because, you know, the way that we think about, you know, people moving around in cars, the way that they heat their home, the choices that people make around consumption. I mean, you mentioned about circular economy earlier Emma as well and the, you know, really crucial point. I think the kind of the main policies that we're bringing forward around, you know, the kind of reuse of stuff or the potential use of materials again. And I think this is stuff that needs to be considered in the round as well because it's not just something that is within the gift of planning planning has a huge part to play in it. But for me, and I've done a couple of these recently, I think the biggest message is that this needs to be done in collaboration with, you know, other areas, other parts of government, other organizations. You know, it's a collaborative piece and we're not going to solve these problems on our own. I'm going to move on because we're quite, we're quite far into time now. I mean, there's not a huge amount of questions come through so we will pick those up. We're going to move into water because it is a really critical issue in this area and we've been using an entire session on it, but I think that we really do want to touch on it in detail. I'm going to hand over to John who's going to pick up on some of these and John and Nancy do you want to pick these up and we'll be in questions at the end. So this is a slide that we've used in a number of the webinars so far, because it's such an important issue for the plan. We've been quite clear that the plan and the level of growth that's been identified in the proposals to consultation is dependent on there being water supply available without causing further harm to the environment. So I've been quite clear that's contingent and that we haven't yet got the evidence to understand that fully and I'll go into that in a second. So it's almost a word is a caveat on the plan that we still need to understand the role water plays. The biggest issue really is that the Greater Cambridge area gets largely most of its water from the choreographer south of the Cambridge. That aquifer is under pressure and doesn't have capacity to provide water to supply for the growth indeed the abstraction rates need to be reduced. It's not a straightforward thinking. Well, don't develop because we've also got responsibilities to respond to economic social environmental issues when planning. We need to respond and understand our objective test needs and if we can do so without causing, you know, an acceptable environmental harm we need to plan for and so we have got to balance all of these issues. So the slide really ends on saying what are the consequences if we were to reduce that growth so the first point would be, we would have to ask our neighbors to meet that growth for us. And that in itself has sustainability consequences clearly they're not meeting needs where they're generated could mean further issues of commuting for example. And then it could be that if they come at the need you don't meet that development at all which has other consequences so not helping providing enough housing for example there are consequences to all of these issues. And the next slides will you go on to what what is happening so it's not something that the councils can deal with directly. And we need very much to work with partners, the water industry, the government to look into how these issues are being resolved. And we commissioned an integrated water strategy to inform the plan that study continues to be developed. And one of the issues that particularly looks at his water supply. And I think we skipped a slide there Paul. That's the one. So, we need to wait and understand the process of water planning that is currently taking place. So at the regional level, water resources are working with the water companies to develop a regional water plan for the area. As looking at how they meet the needs of users economic development and so on, whilst protecting the national environment. So exploring all the options that could be applied into how they can can address the water supply needs issues for the long term I think the plan would go up to 2050. It's got a longer time. It's being prepared at slightly later timeline in our plan. So as you can see there. We're going to carry out some consultation next year, but that final plan won't be available until 2023 so to some extent we're still awaiting the outcome of that process. And the individual water companies will also be preparing their water resource management plans which is their statutory process for identifying water and where it's going to come from has been managed over the period so expecting those to be updated as well. So the water companies and water resources actually did submit a paper to us which you can find in our integrated water management strategy and our document library. And it started to show some of the measures which they're exploring as to how they might be able to address supply issues. Next slide please Paul. So the options they're exploring are particularly bringing forward new reservoirs in the east of England, potentially a Fenn reservoir at the very early stages of planning, and that could significantly increase supplies to our area. And they're also exploring whether in simple terms Cambridge could be better connected up to the surrounding area so are there other water resources in surrounding areas that could be brought in to help meet the needs of Cambridge and take the pressure off the aquifer. And there are other measures also being looked at so how can you use water resources more efficiently reduce leakage all those things. So obviously we need to understand the outcome of that water planning process to understand whether the level of need with identified can be met sustainably, and also when that can happen so might also affect the timing of delivery. Do we need to wait for example for the reservoirs to be available are there shorter term measures come in and meet that demand in the shorter term so there's a lot of unknowns. So it's very clear that we need to understand those issues before we move forward to the final stages of the plan. Next slide please. Nancy. Yeah so John's run through to the additional sources of water supply, which obviously are outside the remit that we can do as a local planning authority. But within the first proposals we do talk about policy to sort of policy areas. One of them is having a very high water efficiency requirement in new development. And this slide shows that at the moment, such typical water use in Cambridge water area is 143 liters per person per day, which is sort of quite high, even in comparison to the 125 liters which is the standard building regulations for new housing. Within our current 2018 local plans we already have a policy that's a sort of more efficient level than that. And, you know within this area it's been identified as an area of serious water stress so we could use that level, which is an optional national building standard. Within the policy area we actually want to go even further than that so we're proposing 80 liters per person per day. Within the integrated water management study, that's shown that that is possible with water efficient fittings and fixtures, but you would also have to use some sort of rainwater harvesting and potentially grey water within developments. But it doesn't add that much more to the cost of the development and in particular those sort of reuse of water schemes particularly work best where it's a sort of larger development rather than kind of individual householder level. Next slide please. The area that we've been looking at is flooding and integrated water management. So, obviously we've picked our sites within the first proposals to avoid the areas of highest flood risk and the evidence is within the level one strategic flood risk assessment that Stuntek has produced for us. And the other side of that is also to reduce the risk of flooding from any new developments and particularly important within that is having sustainable drainage systems within new developments. And these have multiple benefits. They allow infiltration of water, they prevent sort of fast surface runoff. They also have benefits to the rivers, but they also have benefits of sort of filtering water, so help to improve water quality. And they also have immunity and biodiversity benefits too. Particularly we were sort of focusing on having that in that water should be looked at in an integrated way within all new developments and this sort of diagram here shows that how everything can kind of connect. And the developers should be looking forward as to all those interactions between them. Next slide please. And our evidence as we've already spoken about in earlier today is the integrated water management study. There's an outline water cycle study, which has an update at the end of that sort of moving more towards the detailed water cycle study. And there's the strategic flood risk assessment as I've said, and those are all within the document library on the website. Thanks very much Nancy and I think that we're at the end of the slides now. And I just put this slide up because this is where we're currently at in terms of our webinars. On the website, you will see a number of different in real life and other zoom sessions that we've got on all of these sessions will be recorded and they'll be up online so the details plus the slideshows will always be there. So we have still got some questions in the Q&A and we'll pick them up now. I'm happy to go over if we do, if we do run into any more. We have a lot of questions around growth and growth numbers in the chat and we understand this is a really sensitive issue for residents and communities around here as well. And we have dealt with a lot of those conversations and a lot of the detail behind that in some of the previous sessions and the Q&A's that can be found, essentially online. So I just will deal with it once here as well just for those who haven't heard them have that detail if you do want to find further detail you can see on the FAQs. Essentially the issue around growth and the standard methodology at government level is that it is incumbent on us to identify the number of homes that we think are relevant to this particular area. The standard method of government is the standard methodology for the across the UK. Cambridge is quite unique and jobs growth here has been significant in previous history and it's forecasted to be significant. There was quite a detailed piece of evidence work undertaken by a combined authority called the independent Cambridge and Peter Wright independent economic review which even higher jobs numbers which they feel is likely in the next few years. We have taken our own evidence on this because of that fact and we do have to provide enough homes for the job that's incumbent on us to do so because you know planning policy in a local plan in particular is one of the most scrutinized statutory documents you can have it scrutinized independently and in examination in public at the end of the process by goodbye government and will be found to be sound or unsound on that basis so we if we haven't done our homework and if we haven't ticked all of the boxes and explored all of the options and planned as well as we possibly can bearing in mind it's very uncertain. Then that will be something that we will have to pick up at examination and it is unlikely that we would have a sound plan if we hadn't explored the fact that Cambridge has very high economic growth level and that is likely to continue irrespective of what we do with the plan so we do have to plan for that. I think it's important to understand and if you want to look in detail at that that obviously you know the impacts of not planning for enough development is that you know development will happen growth jobs growth will happen irrespective. The impacts will be that you know longer distance commuting commuting worsening affordability insufficient or uncoordinated infrastructure and the inability for us to be able to pay for the things that we need to pay from that development obligation. Section 106 or seal or whatever the new methodology for infrastructure levy might be and so it's really important to have a sound plan that sets out the framework to deliver a sustainable development framework for the future. And you know, I think that that's that's we've done a very, very thorough job on that and and I think, you know, there are we understand all of the issues with that we are planning for you know for 2041 and that growth that might happen in there. And so, let's go to another question in here. And why is clean tech employment, not recognizing the first proposals now I'm going to come to you for that John because I'm not sure we look at particular sectors but any thoughts on that. So, our plan has been informed by another study which looked at economic development and the economic needs of the area because national guidance requires us to respond to employment needs providing a flexible and you know, good supply employment and that work demonstrated that we have got a strong supply of employment land across a range of locations of a range of types. Now we haven't necessarily identified sites for every specific type or of employment but I think what we've demonstrated we have got a strong and flexible supply of employment so clean tech firms could locate and do locate in a number of locations where there is capacity for for further growth in plants so I hope that the plan will continue to support those sectors going forward. Thanks John, and I'm going to, going to come down here. There's this one here. Marina good years slide or your slide Marina and defining net zero carbon for local plan has just talking about carbon offsetting. I don't think we got to carbon offsetting I think we've got a few slides we had in the bag and we'll add them to the slide pack at the end as well as on the website but if you can't explain that Marina be interesting if you could just give a quick explainer about. Yeah, sure thing so I actually already started typing but I'm happy to go live instead that's fine. And so essentially, ideally we would want those offsets to be delivered, according to the following hierarchy. Firstly, avoid having to offset in first place live at your carbon reductions on site for the greatest possible extent. So that would be within greater Cambridge because then that's helping to deliver a net zero carbon greater Cambridge under that one and spoke to definition that we discussed. Thirdly, it definitely shouldn't be outside the UK, essentially because that won't help to deliver a net zero carbon UK which is what we have to achieve by 2050. And also be within a wider Cambridge your context, if desired if it couldn't be done within greater Cambridge and I know that there are some people in the county council who are doing some interesting work on working out possibly a county wide offsetting scheme and what that could be spent on and I know that they've, they already had some experience delivering, for example, using some money to transition the entire small village from oil heating to a village wide district heatnet, I believe. So there could be used within the wider county, ideally, within greater Cambridge and never outside the UK, there would be our two sort of parameters for that. I hope that helps. Thanks Marina. I'm sure that was very helpful. We have got another couple of questions left about about one minute less. So if you have got questions, we're still here please please do put them in the chat, I'm happy to answer them. So just want to gain on the growth issues, you know, and so if jobs growth will happen why propose one from the south of our home to plan for the north, just to answer to that one I mean we run a whole strategy session. I think last week and that goes into some detail around, and you know the kind of rationale for the sites that we're proposing and the way that they relate between the relationship between those homes and jobs. If you want to answer that, John, I can put the link up at the end of the, so we've got the link to where you can find that information in further detail. No, I would end up repeating the strategy section which is very much we sought to focus growth, where jobs homes and transport work, work together through a, a clearly set out strategy so I won't seek to repeat that session again. And another quick question here on water neutrality potential option and do you have to pick this one up. Does Elliot want to pick this one up. Oh, sorry. Yeah. I can't see Elliot the bottom of screen for the bottom I'm really sorry I can't come in. Hello, and thanks for your question Kira I was just starting to talk to you live. That's a tricky one neutrality in the strictest terms means that you compensate for new people by asking the people that live there already to use less. And our problem is to leave us we have to encourage the existing population to use less they're very few and it's all down to personal behavior and motivation. And, you know, it suggests an alternative interpretation of this word water neutrality is that we try and replace, or we introduce new drinking water into the area from outside so that we can water for people without causing any additional detriment in fact recovering the current detriment to the new population. Another issue is that parts of parts of using water efficiently the standards Nancy showed previously is also about using gray water for tasks that you know we don't need to use that very very highly processed drink precious drinking water for so I think that's where we focused our money dare I say our requirements in the plan on making sure we get our dwellings as efficiently as possible that's the most effective way we can do through the plan we think. And while some providing new water efficient buildings is not not more costly than normal buildings might be retrofitting that technology into the existing housing basis is much more challenging. Thank you earlier. Thank you john as well and so just two questions left and then we'll, we'll, we'll finish up so I'll just pick up that last growth question around the leveling up I mean, you know, for one of not really being in a place to be able to comment on the government's plans for leveling up. I think the key point for us is it's, you know, we are two districts with districts in the city. We are local planning opportunities we have to provide a local plan for this area. And, you know, we can have a conversation about the role of strategic planning and we may see some, you know, some, some news on that coming out of government over the next few weeks and months in response to the white paper. But you know the strategic planning issues could potentially have a have a role in helping you know disperse some of that in a more effective way over a longer period, but the current position for us is that we are preparing a local plan for greater Cambridge and it's incumbent on us to prepare that for the needs of this area currently so so you know, I think that we can discuss those other things in the round as they appear. I'm just going to come to, I'm going to open this up to the whole panel because I don't know the answer to it. Certainly, but it could the principles adopted in relation to carbon offsets and also the applies to water supply. That is an interesting question and something I have no idea what the answer might be and I can see some people's heads and brains working. That's that's really the concept of water neutrality, Paul, where you would seek to effectively offset the water demand that you increase from development by reducing the demand from existing development. I think, as Elliot said the experience is very difficult to do is you have to get into people's homes. Other people's homes effectively to make those improvements which is very difficult to do. You'd need water company involvement so on I think up and down the country some of the research that we looked at I think working with earlier on the study was that there's very few examples of making work successfully so that the best approaches are to try and minimize the water you actually use in the first place and that's really what we're focused on at the moment but it's a really interesting point, but a difficult one. Definitely and I think Marina wants to add a couple of points in there as well and then we'll wrap up. Yeah, I'm just going to stick my nose in on the topic that's not really mine as I'm carbon team rather than water team but just a small thought on that topic. I can't say I can't speak for this specific water supply area, but I have worked on developments in other areas so for example 10 water supply area and the affinity water supply area. I just want to note that there's really shocking leakage rates on a lot of those places and again I don't know if that applies in the same way, the Greater Cambridge area but for example, in the 10 water area. Last time I checked their water reports, I think about 25% of what they put in the pipes is just lost to leaks before it gets to anyone's tap. I wonder if that could be something I mean theoretically the water company themselves should be fixing that and they are all making huge efforts to fix it but I wonder if that's a way to sort of do the offsetting without having to fill around with anyone's bathroom fittings in their own homes and so on. I'm good to find myself speaking for the water industry but I know that is part of their thinking so I'm pretty sure the regional water planning and the individual strategies of the water companies will very much look to address that. So in their current water management plans, they already put in steps where they were reducing down their level leakage I have no doubt they'll be looking again at those issues and it may very well form a significant element of their going forward so we really have to watch this space. I think leakage reduction used to be conditional on some economic test and economic level of leakage that's largely being rejected as a concept now. All leakage is bad leakage must be minimized so far as technically feasible. So, there's definitely a big drive on leakage but I just addressing leakage does not compensate for the number of new homes planning Cambridge at different scales. So thank you everybody. And that was a really enjoyable session I mean I've learned a lot myself in that session from Marina and Elliot and Anna so thank you for coming and attending thank you to the team for being here as well. As you can see, if you've got comments and we really really encourage you to get involved and participate and think about, you know what you can contribute to the consultation you can find the consultation on the website which is showing up there. There's a lot of chat going on the social media as well so if you hashtag to see local plan organic your courage will take us straight to the website and then you can either get involved in a short survey or you can get more detailed comments in there. And as I say we're running until sort of early early early December so please stay tuned for the sessions that will be running. I wish you'll have a lovely evening thanks for those of you did attend and I'll see you hopefully soon and thank you again I really thank my panel. So thank you have a lovely evening.