Policy NZC1: Achieving Net Zero Carbon Development

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Support

Net Zero Carbon Development Plan

Representation ID: 72095

Received: 25/08/2021

Respondent: Severn Trent Water

Agent: Severn Trent Water

Representation Summary:

Severn Trent is supportive of this policy, particularly bullet point 1. One key element of reducing energy demand and carbon impact in households is water usage. One of the key findings of an Environment Agency report named ‘Greenhouse gas emissions of water supply and demand management options’ - link is that “89 per cent of carbon emissions in the water supply - use - disposal system is attributed to "water in the home" and includes the energy for heating water (excludes space heating), which compares with public water supply and treatment emissions of 11 per cent.”

It is therefore pertinent that this policy include measures to design and build new developments that are fitted with water efficient fittings, meeting the optional requirement in Building Regulations of 110 litres of water per person per day (l/p/d), this goes beyond the 125 l/p/d that is specified in Part G of Building Regulations.

We recommend that if this is not already a policy within your Local Planning documents that it is updated to be included to support your Net Zero ambitions. We would recommend the inclusion of the following wording:

‘Development proposals must demonstrate that the estimated consumption of wholesome water per dwellings should not exceed 110 litres of water per person per day.‘

Full text:

Please see attached

Attachments:

Support

Net Zero Carbon Development Plan

Representation ID: 72102

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Pamela Lunn

Representation Summary:

Re:" a) Considering the potential to utilise large scale renewable or low carbon energy sources such as heat networks or local large-scale renewable energy generation sources, preferably through a direct connect." As before 'considering' is not strong enough - there needs to be more muscle, more bite, to this.

Re: offsets - these need looking at carefully so that they are *real* and not 'greenwashing'. The offset industry is full of loopholes - they must not be allowed.

Full text:

Re:" a) Considering the potential to utilise large scale renewable or low carbon energy sources such as heat networks or local large-scale renewable energy generation sources, preferably through a direct connect." As before 'considering' is not strong enough - there needs to be more muscle, more bite, to this.

Re: offsets - these need looking at carefully so that they are *real* and not 'greenwashing'. The offset industry is full of loopholes - they must not be allowed.

Object

Net Zero Carbon Development Plan

Representation ID: 72116

Received: 11/09/2021

Respondent: Mr A Patrick

Representation Summary:

The policy must be tighter.

Full text:

This is an emergency. Zero carbon cannot be achieved using low carbon sources. Low is not zero - and how low do you mean? This looks like a get-out option which should be removed.
Carbon offsetting is also problematic and too easily used as a get-out. "Burn now - offset later" should not be an option. Any offsetting for the building construction must be within the time frame of the building construction. Any offsetting required from the use of the building must be equivalent and run at the same time as the carbon usage.
The wording suggests WDC is not seriously committed to this. "Should", "expected" and "considered" do not mean the same as "must", "required" and "delivered". There should be no wiggle room and the policy should be explcit in defining what is required.

Support

Net Zero Carbon Development Plan

Representation ID: 72130

Received: 12/09/2021

Respondent: Jenny Bevan

Representation Summary:

'Offsetting should be delivered within or as close as possible to the development' - this is absolutely vital. But this policy should go further and say 'no further than 1 mile from the development' so that developers cannot plant trees in far away districts which are of no benefit to the local people whose green fields, trees and hedgerows are being built on. In Bishop's Tachbrook AC Lloyd offset biodiversity losses by securing land in Alcester, in a different district. This cannot be allowed to happen under this policy.

Full text:

'Offsetting should be delivered within or as close as possible to the development' - this is absolutely vital. But this policy should go further and say 'no further than 1 mile from the development' so that developers cannot plant trees in far away districts which are of no benefit to the local people whose green fields, trees and hedgerows are being built on. In Bishop's Tachbrook AC Lloyd offset biodiversity losses by securing land in Alcester, in a different district. This cannot be allowed to happen under this policy.

Support

Net Zero Carbon Development Plan

Representation ID: 72138

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

Representation Summary:

This is both vital and sensible.

Full text:

This is both vital and sensible.

Object

Net Zero Carbon Development Plan

Representation ID: 72149

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Barwood Land

Agent: Turley

Representation Summary:

While Policy NZC1 states development should be net zero, it does not clearly present the definition of net zero, nor what is meant by being, ‘net zero carbon at the point of determination of planning permission’ as referenced in Policy NZC2(D). These supporting policy requirements do not clearly set out how development is to reduce emissions before offsetting. Given the issues of viability in Section 1 we believe that this Policy is amended to align with the requirements and timings of the Future Homes Standard and national guidance which is aiming to deliver Net Zero Ready housing over time.

Full text:

The policy states new development should achieve net zero carbon emissions through reducing energy demand, incorporating zero or low carbon energy sources, and offsetting residual operational emissions to net zero.
While Policy NZC1 states development should be net zero, it does not clearly present the definition of net zero, nor what is meant by being, ‘net zero carbon at the point of determination of planning permission’ as referenced in Policy NZC2(D).
To meet the overarching policy requirement the following sub-policies are proposed:
• Policy NZC2(A) requires development to achieve a 75% carbon reduction above Part L 2013, this relates to the regulated emissions of new development only.
• Policy NZC2(B) sets out a requirement for development to consider zero and low carbon sources of energy. It is noted that the supporting text for this policy states this clause requires an Energy Statement to be prepared setting out how the residual energy demand of development should be met, however this is not what the Policy as it currently stands requires.
• Policy NZC2(C)) sets out the use of ‘net zero ready’ technology in the event fossil fuels are used onsite.
• Policy NZC2(D) states that where development cannot demonstrate that it is net zero carbon at the point of determination of a planning permission, is required to address residual carbon emissions via payment to the Council’s fund or approved alternative.
These policy requirements do not clearly define net zero, or how these policies require development to reduce emissions before offsetting. While we note that net zero is the likely intent of the policies it is not currently clear what definition of net zero the Council is using, nor does the policies definitively set out what the onsite building level requirement is.
Given the issues of viability in Section 1 we believe that this Policy is amended to align with the requirements and timings of the Future Homes Standard (FHS) and national guidance which is aiming to deliver Net Zero Ready housing over time.