Q-S5.1: Please provide any comments you have on the emissions estimation modelling for the seven potential new settlement options?

E1 option. Already over development without infrastructure NB roads. Also much increased traffic and therefore emissions for existing settlements along this route.

While it is important to assess emissions it is important to be aware of the assumptions that go into the modelling of each potential settlement and to consider the new settlement option against growth of existing settlements.

Natural Resources and Waste management are important but Flood Risk should be considered highly as deleopment can be carried out with flood risk in mind PROVIDED that floor slabs and access infrastructure can be raised ABOVE the 1/100 year risk level. Higher would be better but is likely to prevent nearly all deveopment.

Emissions would damage our Old Buildings. Henley in Arden. Why?

I would urge caution when using the model and take heed of the erroneous advice resulting from the analytics around the pandemic. There are many variables that will skew the results including the take up of electric vehicles, the cost of energy incl fuel, fuel duty etc.

Surely the key point about emissions generation is the current (hidden) policy of maximising them by use of uncontrolled traffic lights everywhere they can be put up. There is little point in modelling possible future developments that may or may not take place in the future. Look at those created by the Long Marston and Meon Vale developments that are happening today. Where were the models for these? Haven't we had more than enough of computer models that always turn out wrong? Examples - the Covid death rate predictions; the Bankof England forecasts of inflation etc, etc. Why waste more public money on endless consultants when you know all along that the results are completely dependenty on the initial assumptions that are put into the model.

I read through the Arup report on emissions estimation modelling on which policy decisions may be based. I found the reports conclusions unconvincing in a number of key areas. 1. The veracity and accuracy of the report depends on a large number of untested assumptions. 2. No mention of known uncertainty or error margins is made in any of the calculations, if this were taken into account it is plausible that all the options have the same emission potential. 3. I found the conclusion 3.6 "The emissions estimates highlight the critical importance across all growth options of policies to reduce dependence on private car travel" is unsupported by anything other than assumptions. Uncertainty margins for this statement are not included.

I'm not sure what the modelling is saying - are the figures good / bad or acceptable?

I believe that the proposed new settlement for Henley would actually be located in Wood End/Danzey and not Henley.

Seems to be an incomprehensible & questiontable. No popuplation numbers are given for each line in the table so how do we gauge the damage/efficiency?

Very difficult to make any sensible comments on this without understanding what assumptions have been made in the modelling. C1 for example has no secondary school, is surrounded by narrow and twisty lanes, has no shops, a train station with very few trains stopping per day, minimal parking by station, and old infrastructure which is already creaking. Do the assumptions in the model include replacing or radically improving all these? In addition do they include the costs to Solihull of improving their infrastructure as well, as they will bear much/some of the strain if Kingswood/Lapworth is expanded significantly?

To me they all look roughly same. How is one supposed to draw any conclusions.

IMPORTANT EMISSION STIMATION ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

Census information shows that most people in rural areas drive and own multiple cars. Taking the parish of Tanworth in Arden as an example households tend to own and run several cars despite having 4 train stations within the parish. Having a train station therefore should not be seen as a substitute for car ownership and therefore will have little benefit for emmissions

this needs to be thorough and appropriate. Such as linking specifically to infrastructure delivery, and not dependant on just the existence of a policy

C1 - there is a misunderstanding that Lapworth Rail station provides a viable means of transport. As anyone who lives there will tell you the trains are so infrequent as to make the station in practical for regular rail travel, locals instead use Dorridge station either walking (1hr) where there are no footpaths or driving and paying for parking. The emissions should include all the journeys made by car to use the alternative railway provision.

There seems little difference in the figures provided for the different options especially in the long-term. Given the many assumptions that must be involved in making these estimates, how significant are these small differences?

There seems to be little difference in the emission figures provided, especially in the long-term. Given the many assumptions that must be involved in making these estimates, how significant are these small difference?

Any new building and infra-structure and would ofcourse impact on the emissions estimation and modelling should retain within the legislative requirements and not intrude on areas such as children's schools, elder village communities and environments around hospitals for example. The community would want assurance that the air is being monitored during site builds whilst larger traffic activity has great impact.

Finding ways to reduce carbon emissions is vital given the climate emergency. Unfortunately, this modelling is inadequate, as effective change in lifestyles has not been considered so that all scenarios are predicted to have almost identical emissions.

Are those estimates based upon facts of frequency and size of services passing through them? I find them hard to believe based upon Kingswood/Lapworth volumes of passenger and frieght services compared with Depper's Bridge for example.

I feel that significant concern needs to be attached to assumptions regarding CO2 savings in connection with rail use for locations such as Hatton. For example, as a current resident of Hatton Station with a work location in the suburbs of Coventry (not an uncommon employment location) it is entirely impractical to consider a train to Birmingham, then change from Moor Street to New Street and back to Coventry, or Hatton - Leamington - Coventry - local train or bus. Despite the proximity of the local station, for longer travel (e.g. to or via London) I also normally end up travelling by car to Warwick Parkway, then taking a train from there - this is as a result of infrequency and unreliability of connecting local trains. Also, already under current (relatively small) settlement size, we see traffic delays at peak times for journeys to key centres of employment (Warwick, Leamington Spa, Coventry) such as at the junction of the B4439 and A4177, then from there all the way to the A46 and through Warwick. I am concerned that the impacts of queuing car traffic on carbon emissions and local air quality are not likely to be robustly modelled.

It is essential that an emissions estimation modelling be done and that subsequently the builders adhere to the decisions such a modelling will determine.

For development F2 as public transport is more expensive than using a car if you already have one it is likely that there would be a huge increase in the number of vehicles travelling to leamington on the A425. This would have a huge detrimental impact on Ufton village.

With no provision for electrification on any of our railways. Hybrid and or hydrogen power must be medium term Options.

It is not possible for us to comment on the methodology used here as we are not experts. we would however make the point that over the next 30 years electric cars will be much more prevelant than fossil fuel cars and that this will negate much of the net zero argument for basing new settlements around railway stations. Presumably emphasis will also be placed by national, regional and local government on upgrading housing stock which again will impact on projected carbon emissions. It would seem sensible to adopt a hybrid approach focusing on a variety of transport options and economic opportunities when planning development.

I would question any of your data on emissions estimation modelling. We know GLH is underway alongside the M40. We also know that the noise bund is already being reduced in height leading to more pollution. No reference to noise or light pollution in any of your vision or strategy. Why no measurement?

The emissions modelling is the nearly the same for all sites - so not properly modelled and in valid.

As stated in answer to question Q-I1 the differences between the various option in terms of the cumulative CO2 emissions are NOT materially significant and should be discounted. The variance between the highest and lowest figures for each of the options is less than 7.5% which will be significantly less than the margin of error that would be applicable to any estimate spanning a period of 25 years which must be at least 10% and may well be in excess of 25%. NO STATISTICIAN would use or rely on such figures, and it is a major criticism of the authors of the report that there is no mention or assessment of the margin of error in the figures they have presented.

The emissions data does not appear to accurately reflect the environmental benefits of rail transport over road. Road traffic currently accounts for 72% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transport (73% of passenger-kilometres), aviation accounts for 14% (8% of passenger-kilometres), and rail accounts for less than 1% (6% of passenger-kilometres).* * European Environment Agency (2019), ‘Share of transport greenhouse gas emissions’, data visualization.