5.2

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Object

Sustainable Buildings SPD

Representation ID: 23

Received: 01/09/2008

Respondent: Warwickshire Rural Community Council

Representation:

It is a bit draconian to expect 10% in all circumstances given that a really well built home may only need a very small input of energy. In general agree with demanding more energy efficiency.

Full text:

Congratulates the Council on its clear guidance and was pleased to see the regulations apply to extensions as well as new build and to non-residential and residential development.
Liked the use of examples and advice on how to acheive energy efficiency.

It is a bit draconian to expect 10% in all circumstances given that a really well built home may only need a very small input of energy. In general agree with demanding more energy efficiency.

Uttlesford requires that extensions should not add to the energy needs of a building.

Comment

Sustainable Buildings SPD

Representation ID: 41

Received: 09/10/2008

Respondent: Bernard Perkins

Representation:

Energy efficiency should have primacy over renewables. THe developer should reduce the energy load first.

Full text:

Energy efficiency should have primacy over renewables. THe developer should reduce the energy load first.

Object

Sustainable Buildings SPD

Representation ID: 44

Received: 10/10/2008

Respondent: Cllr George Illingworth

Representation:

The highlighted statement implies that a building designed to the highest energy saving standards but with no renewable energy source is less acceptable than a less efficient building with a higher energy demand of which 10% is renewable. This is illogical as the non-renewable energy demand of the former will be less than the 90% of the latter. Are we not in danger of encouraging the wrong approach?

Full text:

The highlighted statement implies that a building designed to the highest energy saving standards but with no renewable energy source is less acceptable than a less efficient building with a higher energy demand of which 10% is renewable. This is illogical as the non-renewable energy demand of the former will be less than the 90% of the latter. Are we not in danger of encouraging the wrong approach?

Object

Sustainable Buildings SPD

Representation ID: 77

Received: 10/10/2008

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

Representation:

Objects to the contradiction between sections 4 and 5 with regard to new development and home extensions. There is concern that some developers may try to thwart the objectives while domestic extensions may be unreasonably denied particularly in older un insulated properties where using latest building regulations without applying renewables could acheive a greater energy saving.

Full text:

Objects to the contradiction between sections 4 and 5 with regard to new development and home extensions. There is concern that some developers may try to thwart the objectives while domestic extensions may be unreasonably denied particularly in older un insulated properties where using latest building regulations without applying renewables could acheive a greater energy saving.

Paragraph 8.4 should reflect the latest mandate that only permeable surfaces to domestic driveways shall be allowed.

It is questioned whether the renewable toolkits are representative. Do they consider acquisition in terms of carbon costs and whole life costs (reliability / maintainability) that would contribute to future carbon footprint through spares. Does the toolkit compare the relative merits of different types of renewable energy sources.