Q-C3.1: Do you think we should develop a carbon offsetting approach to new developments where it is demonstrated that it is not possible to achieve net carbon zero requirements on site?
Invest developer money in community schemes and projects to give free carbon improvments to new housing schemes e.g. triple glazing
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Yes - all major new developments should achieve net carbon zero. it would be a failing of the SWLP if this were not to be achieved. The Henley-in-Arden Vision is not only to achieve net zero but to go on to provide for carbon sequestration. This is the inevitable direction of policy. Clearly, the SWLP should not be paying lip-service to sustainability, but delivering it. This means allocating viable and deliverable sites for achieving net zero and beyond through sustainable development. There is viable and deliverable scope to achieve this in Henley-in-Arden.
Achieving net zero/sequestration at the scale required will not happen by chance. It requires land use planning policies with teeth, setting out requirements for development. The SWLP should take advantage of the existence of viable and deliverable opportunities to achieve zero carbon/sequestration as part of comprehensive sustainable developments. One such opportunity exists in Henley-in-Arden, where there is a willing landowner, available land and a sustainable location for development.
Carbon offsetting seems to be used used as an easy escape from dealing with the problem of achieving a carbon-neutral development. It should not be offered as a mainstream alternative to good design and thoughtful development which is truly sustainable in terms of longevity and environmental impact.
Both should be a high priority, but not as a trade off for poor design. There is a lot of ground to make up in this area and including further offsetting options for developers encourages cost-cutting in design and a failure to rise to the challenge of true environmentally sustainable development.
Afforestation of hills surrounding Shipston on Stour would support carbon sequestration and contribute to Vision and Strategic Aims.
Comparisons of sequestration benefits between afforestation, arable agriculture and grassland.
No answer given
No answer given
No comments
No comments
Offsetting should be permitted in respect of the output of identified offsite renewable generators and only for specific new build categories such as flats, office buildings, industrial buildings where on-site renewable energy is not possible. Carbon emission offsetting should NOT be used for low rise new residential dwellings where all of the energy requirements must be matched by on site renewables
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
All new housing standards should have substantially higher standards of insulation and heat generation.
Plenty of scope within the Meon Vale / LMA area to enhance existing woodland and wildlife corridors
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
We want to develop woodland in our parish and feel that this is something that could be done district wide. This may need planning permission in certain areas and when there is no harm to surrounding land/property, permission should be fast tracked.
Developments can assist in this. Planting plans should be submitted at an early stage in planning procedure with them containing real details including types, age and nature of plants (trees/shrubs etc). This plan should be adhered to and monitored by enforcement. There should also be details plan for maintenance of the planting during the time needed for it to establish. Planting plans should become a fundamental requirement for all developments. We also consider that each development should achieve its own 10% increase in biodiversity.
No answer given
No answer given
To provide a grant towards the construction of solar arrays on established car parks in retail parks, where cars park under the solar array. Over the district there are acres of such car parks but it would be providing both parking and solar energyAppreciate that it would be expensive to install but beneficial in the long run.
The SWLP is calling for sites for both housing and employment, let it be a priority that all employment hubs must provide renewable energy generation on their warehouses,office roofs and car parks.
No answer given
No answer given
Pay local farmers for regenerative farming methods to sequester carbon in soil regeneration and tree planting.
All development, whether it be commercial or residential must have solar panels (or other renewable sources - air source heat pump etc) installed. This should be written in policy and South Warwickshire should lead the way towards a change to building regulations. If every new building had solar installed when built, there would be no need to use valuable agricultural land for solar development and ruin the open countryside South Warwickshire is loved for. There is no joined up approach to this - encouraging further development in the area increases the demand on electricity and at the same time the council talks about decarbonising. Make sure any new development is well insulated and covers its own energy demands on site not add to the problem.
none
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Building regulations should be updated to compel new developments, be they domestic or commercial, to be net zero. Use of solar energy and air/ground source heat pumps as part of initial design and build, plus a greater focus on heat retention through better insulation and design. Local Authorities should be setting an example by looking at how they insulate and heat their own buildings and how they can use solar energy e.g. solar panels over car parks as well as on the roofs of buildings.
No answer given
No answer given
Many offsetting schemes are dubious. Therefore any offsetting should be in the form of renewable energy production (such as solar panels on roofs) or reduction in energy use (retrofitting) in south Warwickshire.
The information provided on carbon sequestration is correct but there needs to be a separate section on Offsetting. Offsetting policies will be very important most especially to ensure that they are not abused by developers. There is no definition of Offsetting in the Glossary and this must be addressed. Carbon emission offsetting is quite a wide subject and takes a number of forms: Trees; Off-site renewable energy; Retrofit of existing properties off-site to reduce carbon; etc. Carbon emission offsetting is necessary for specific new build categories such as flats, office buildings, industrial buildings where on site renewable energy is not possible. Carbon emission offsetting should NOT be used for low rise new residential dwellings where all of the energy requirements must be matched by on site renewables.
No answer given
No answer given
It is not OK for developers to say they can't be carbon neutral. They can but it would cost them. WDC needs to take a stand if it is to truly tackle the climate emergency and not allow carbon offsetting and insist on carbon neutral projects. If developers make less profit but Warwick District is positively affected then so be it.
Biodiversity offsetting is an absolute joke because the offsetting can happen literally miles away, with no benefit from the devasted community. Similarly carbon offsetting does nothing for the lungs of children nearby the developments whose lungs are blackened by emissions.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Entirely depends on the nature of the offsetting scheme. Is this just green washing such as planting trees in the wrong site which will then not be looked after and not flourish or is this an offsetting scheme which actually makes a true beneficial impact?
No answer given
It is important that in any offsetting program, there are clear limits set on the conditions under which offsetting is permitted, and the type of project which can be allocated carbon credits. If this is not done, offsetting has the potential to do more damage than good. Where carbon offsets are cheap (as they are at present) it is important that cash-rich developers are not allowed to purchase them as an alternative to achieving buildings that are net zero in use. Thus there needs to be some eligibility criteria for assessing whether emissions are genuinely "hard to offset". Offsets purchased for emissions that it is possible to reduce or balance by other means should not be recognised by the Councils. What is and is not "hard to offset" may also change with time, as technological and infrastructural conditions change, and this will need regular reassessing. This implies the need for the Councils to acquire expert knowledge of industry and construction, to supplement its plans. Only a project that generates net negative carbon emissions can be genuinely considered to offset emissions. If a carbon credit is allocated for a project that only reduces carbon from a polluting source (e.g. efficiency programs) then when that credit is sold, that allows the purchasing company to add those emissions reductions to its own balance sheet only at the cost of taking them away from the selling company. In other words, the emissions have not genuinely been offset, only moved. Moreover, the company that in practice achieves the reductions, which may be doing all it can to reduce emissions, is then marked down as having high emissions, while the company buying the reductions may still in practice be releasing emissions that could easily be reduced. The reallocation thus potentially disguises the capacity for further reductions. So only net negative projects should be considered to provide authentic offsets. This also again underlines the importance of the previous point. It may be worth incentivising projects that merely reduce carbon emissions in other ways, but the council should be aware of the possibility that incentives given to polluting schemes with reduced emissions might actually make antiquated forms of infrastructure viable, where they would otherwise be economically outcompeted by genuinely low carbon/renewable alternatives. Benefits from any project will rely on the Councils' ability to monitor whether offsets are actually achieved (e.g. do the saplings actually grow, or do they die after a year?), and to impose penalties if they are not. And obviously this goes for emissions reductions projects in general, not just offsets. The Councils therefore need to develop robust and well-funded systems for monitoring such projects. This might potentially require an increase in government funding, though monitoring techniques involving satellite imagery and AI may help reduce costs. The Councils should therefore develop proposals for what such a monitoring and penalty-imposing system would look like, and make lobbying for the funding it requires a regular part of its lobbying strategy vis-a-vis central government. Monitoring offsetting projects will be easier where the projects are local. This should therefore be taken into account in the design of these projects, perhaps through working with the County Council to influence local offsetting schemes they are developing. There are only a limited number of trees and hedgerows that can be planted, soils and wetlands restored etc, and the achievements of carbon capture technology seem likely to be very limited in the all-important coming decades. There will therefore be only a limited supply of offsets available, and in principle these should be allocated on a technical basis, to match those projects that are genuinely hard to reduce (e.g. emissions from a - hopefully reduced - number of long haul flights, or from cement production). Allocating them on an economic basis, i.e. to whichever company has enough spare cash lying around and considers it economic to purchase offsets, potentially contravenes this aim. It may be that there are clever ways of designing the scheme to align economic means with technical aims, but the likely complexity of such a scheme may invite unintended consequences and the exploitation of loopholes. It therefore seems that offsetting in carbon markets might achieve some benefits in the short term, as a way of acquiring funds for nature restoration programs, but they could potentially be a hindrance in the long term, insofar as they fail to properly allocate offsets to emissions genuinely needing offsetting. We would suggest that the Councils view any offsetting policy as transitional, and in need of regular review.