4: The 10% Requirement

Areas of maximum wind tend to be open spaces and wind turbines will be visible. The presumption should be that they are allowed in most places provided they will work efficiently. Warwick District Council recently approved the installation of photovoltaic panels on a conspicuous gable end wall of a Victorian House in a conservation area. Representatives of all the political parties decided that fighting climate change was more important than preserving architectural niceties.

10% rule - In the context of peak oil and climate change we need to maximise the efficiency of every new building as far as is reasonably possible. The 10% rule should be regarded as an absolute minimum. Most new buildings could have solar thermal and PV panels. All buildings should be passivehauses.

Water Conservation - Water Conservation should not just be encouraged but should become the norm.

In order to encourage cycling new developments should include safe cycle storage areas (for example in overlooked courtyards) to reduce bicycle theft.

The emphasis on solar heating and photo voltaics might be appropriate on the south coast but is over done for Warwickshire because there is reduced solar radiation due to our latitude and substantially more cloudy skys. It isnt true that photo voltaics are nearly as effective on a cloudy day as on a sunny day. Data shows (for herefordshire) that the total solar radiation on a cloudy day in winter is about one tenth of that on a sunny day in summer.

Supports the use of log burning stoves when the logs have been produced sustainably (e.g waste wood). This has a good chance of providing 10% of energy sustainably.


There is no mention of house ventilation. There is a limit to how well a house can be insulated because houses must be ventilated to control moisture levels and maintain a supply of fresh air. Using heat exchanged ventilation the heat from waste air leaving a building can be transferred to fresh air entering it so little or no additional energy is required to heat the incoming air to maintain room temperature. This can also be used when it is hotter outside than in to keep the inside cooler.

The requirement for a given percentage of sustainable energy is pointless and unhelpful. Reduction in fossil fuel usage is required and if this can be acheived by energy conservation techniques alone that should be good enough. Instead houses should only be able to consume a predetermined quantity of energy from fossil fuels each year.

I deplore the decision regarding St Margarets House, Whitnash where double glazing was refused. This should have been passed on the grounds of energy conservation.

If the 10% requirement had been in place when Chase Meadow was planned solar panels could have been built in from the inception. Surely at least 25% of energy could have been produced locally.

In Canada municipal buildings are heated and lit by the people inside, when will this technology be commonplace in buildings here?

Applauds the decision to use permeable paving on all drives.

Supports sustainable development and construction techniques as an important principle for the district and recognises the significance and wider implications of a commitment to reducing climate change through the planning system.

The submission of an Energy Statement should not be necessary for all planning applications and the format of each statement may vary as not all categories in paragraph 3.2 will be attainable. A uniform approach should not be adopted as the submission and format of the statement should be dependant on the scale and nature of the proposal.

Welcome the recognition that meeting the 10% requirement may not be appropriate for all developments.

Support the inclusion of para 4.4 which identifies the potential conflict between the provision of renewable technology and the preservation of the historic environment.

Supports the recognition that the installation of renewables can detract from the historic integrity of the building but appreciates that with careful consideration some installations may be appropriate with the historic environment

Generally we welcome the document which clarifies how the Council will apply national targets and the requirements outlined in the Local Plan.

The 10% requirement now seems very modest and unchallenging. We would like WDC to raise this to 20% or higher. Failing that it should be made explicit throughout the document that the 10% is a minimum requirement.

It is difficult to ascertain when certain targets are to be met. For example the SPD encourages all new housing to meet level three of the Code for Sustainable Homes. However if new housing is to meet zero carbon by 2016 then new development starting 2009/10 should be designed to level 4, 5 or ideally 6.

The section on sustainable water management should be more mandatory and less advisory. For example in para 8.9 if SUDs are not used this will result in the application being refused.

Planning Committee members will need guidance on how much weight to give to the provisions of the SPD and whether an application could be refused solely on the grounds of non compliance with sustainability requirements.

Some Councils have a policy of designing for health which encourages developers to provide gardens, adequate space for drying washing etc. If it is not possible to give each dwelling a garden WDC should insist on some communal open space. In developments of 20 or more dwellings there must be a requirement to provide allotment space adjacent or within 1km. An allocation of one allotment space per 10 dwellings would be acceptable.

It is considered that the policy is rather limiting in seeking the use of renewable energy sources on site or in the locality to acheive the 10% requirement. The Great London Authority has produced an Energy Hierarchy through which energy production from renewables is only categorised as tier 3. The SPD should be flexible to allow for other energy sources in particular reduced carbon technologies.

It is noted that paragraph 4.9 makes provision for a reduction in the 10% requirement if CHP is provided. This should be given greater emphasis in recognition of the alternative approaches which can be used to meet the same aims and objectives.