4 Aims and Objectives

Support

Representation ID: 72088

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Anna Elliott

I'm fully in favour of houses being built to have net zero carbon.

Support

Representation ID: 72089

Received: 28/07/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs F.R. & P.M. Edgar

Since all new cars are to be zero-carbon, it would seem to make sense that all new houses should also be zero-carbon.

Object

Representation ID: 72090

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Graham Ball

The draft policy states that its target is as close as possible to net zero emissions produced within Warwick district by 2030.

1. The inclusion of "as possible" means your performance against this target cannot be measured because you can always claim something has not been possible. Therefore, "as possible" should be removed.

2. Limiting the target to emissions produced within Warwick district means that you can meet the target by moving emissions production (eg a factory) to anywhere outside the district, thus not actually contributing to net zero globally at all. Instead, your target should be for all final outputs consumed in Warwick district to have net zero emissions, thus taking account of their global carbon impact.

I expect that both these changes mean you would need to do more, sooner to meet net zero or to push the target nero (sic) date back.

If you do not make these changes, it would suggest your net zero policy is a sham.

Support

Representation ID: 72091

Received: 05/08/2021

Respondent: HS2

Agent: High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd

I can confirm that HS2 Ltd have no specific comments to make on this consultation. However, we note the council’s
aspirations and would advise that HS2 will also support the UK's transition to a net zero carbon economy (further
information can be found here https://www.hs2.org.uk/why/carbon/

Support

Representation ID: 72092

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Jonathan Hodgson

I would like to register that I thoroughly support the aims and objectives of the proposed Net Zero Carbon policy.

On an initial reading of the document, it appears to be well though-out (including a sensible reference to avoiding creation of fuel
poverty) but entirely focussed on carbon during occupation and use of buildings. Would it also be worthwhile to consider
embedded carbon in the construction phase, and to encourage the use of renewable or low-carbon construction materials?

Support

Representation ID: 72093

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Hill Close Gardens

I fully support the new net zero development plan document. I remain anxious that
developers may prefer to pay for offsetting instead of tackling the net zero aim for future
housing. Offsetting must be the more expensive alternative and only allowed if the net zero
objectives are genuinely impossible to meet in full.

Support

Representation ID: 72094

Received: 15/08/2021

Respondent: Roger Saunders

There is a great deal of damage to undo and past squandering of mistakes to make up for,
not least the arrogant and deeply narrow minded revocation in 2016 of the previous
central Government's policy of requiring net zero new builds before now.

It is now imperative that all new builds are net zero, and not just in their design and operation/use but in their construction as well. Current general practice in construction is far from net zero and must more to net zero with urgency.

What sanctions/penalties will be applied to those developments that fall short of standards that will be agreed at planning permission? Hopefully they will be obliged to fund and perform works necessary to bring such develops to the agreed standards.

I am concerned that NZCZ ( B) and ( C) provide potential loopholes and therefore need to be both rigorously enforced and resourced to ensure they are enforced. Equally the certification of compliance post-construction must be properly resourced to ensure its effectiveness.

Finally, I certainly welcome this initiative but remain deeply concerned on the lack of concrete policies to address the existing housing stock.

Object

Representation ID: 72096

Received: 12/08/2021

Respondent: Steven Barnett

Stop with the fraud.

Support

Representation ID: 72100

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Pamela Lunn

Again, this is a bare minimum.

Note that: "4.2.3 Objective 3: To support the consideration of low carbon energy sources as part of large scale development proposals." This needs to go beyond 'consideration'!

The words there should be 'development and implementation'; no wriggle-room, no get-outs.

Support

Representation ID: 72111

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: The Coal Authority

The Planning team at the Coal Authority have no specific comments to make on the draft Net Zero Carbon DPD.

Support

Representation ID: 72114

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Highways England

Agent: Highways England

We support the objectives which have been set, but wondered if the following has been taken into consideration:

The greenhouse gases emitted in making the materials which will be used in the construction of new developments.

The emissions made when transporting materials to the development sites.

The type of materials used not only in the construction of new buildings but supporting infrastructure such as new roads.

Promoting use of sustainable travel options in the design of new developments such as cycle lanes and public transport connections.

Support

Representation ID: 72115

Received: 11/09/2021

Respondent: Mr A Patrick

At last! We should have been doing this years ago.
The objectives in 4.2 are good but not sufficient. Carbon use generated by the use of buildings is not proplerly considered. Such as how the site location, density and layout affects travel choices (bus vs cycle vs car vs train). Also, whether the buildings should include provision for cycle storage, e-bike or EV charging facilities. Also, requirements for developments to be designed for optimum bus and cycle access. Also site provision for supporting wildlife or offsetting the loss of habitat.

Object

Representation ID: 72122

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Pamela Lunn

The consultation documents would not pass the scrutiny of the Plain English Campaign (http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/). This is absolutely not a user-friendly consultation, either in terms of your use of language, or in terms of the level of computer confidence and competence required.

This is not an example of the Council demonstrating a real commitment to involving local people in the decision-making process. It seems to me to be a ‘CINO’ – consultation in name only, allowing someone in the office to tick a box saying: ‘we consulted’ . . . but the consultation is neither wide nor significantly ‘real’. The section of the population capable of responding in any meaningful way is very small.

Support

Representation ID: 72124

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Cuvette Property Consulting Limited

Agent: Oxalis Planning

Overall, we agree with the Council’s approach to addressing the climate emergency. The policies generally incorporate flexibility, but we believe that Policy NZC2(A) should include clarification on the need to include information regarding energy performance, only where relevant to do so.

Support

Representation ID: 72125

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Individual

Overall, we agree with the Council’s approach to addressing the climate emergency. The policies generally incorporate flexibility, but we believe that Policy NZC2(A) should include clarification on the need to include information regarding energy performance, only where relevant to do so.

Support

Representation ID: 72126

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

We welcome the DPD as a major step towards ensuring that all “all new developments should be net zero carbon in operation” thus enabling the “achievement of national and local carbon reduction targets”. There are several technical areas which we believe may be improved or amended.

General
The overall tone of the document is soft. It should be tightened by substituting words such as ‘asking’ with words like ‘must’ to ensure that the policies are given appropriate weight. Phrases such as ‘demonstrates …have been considered’ (NZC2(B) page 23) should be avoided as they are too vague to be meaningful and allow opponents to the policies to argue for alternatives.

Support

Representation ID: 72127

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Diane Warren

I think that all buildings should have Zero carbon built in them. To make it Echo Friendly. And solar panels to make homes green, especially new buildings.

Support

Representation ID: 72136

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

A clear aim in a clear timescale.

Object

Representation ID: 72157

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Raymond Bullen

Please see attached.

Support

Representation ID: 72163

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Sally Duns

I welcome the DPD in their plans for all new developments to be net carbon zero in operation.

I feel that some of the wording needs to ensure that this is less a suggestion and more an expectation.

I also noted there is little mention of biodiversity in new developments and I'm wondering if this can be
included as a consideration eg hedgehog highways.