Net Zero Carbon Development Plan Document - Regulation 19

1.2.5 Building on Green Belt exacerbates carbon problems by removing vegetaion which absorbs carbon. Mature trees (and less mature, which will now never reach maturity) are cut down for building developments regulary. In Kenilworth just after the A46 roundabout there is a stretch of about 50 meters of mature trees that have recently been obliterated for a new development on Green fields. This was done in nesting season, which is a Wildlife Crime which has no negative impact on those who commit it. These carbon costs, and removal of the means to decrease carbon (vegetation) are not being reflected in your assessment (1.2.7). Further 1.2.7 does not give any information about the remaining 60% of carbon that is not related to buildings. How are we to address these problems if there is not clarity about what the problems are? 1.3.1 states what this DPD is concerning, which is a very small element of the issue stated in the target of net zero.

What consultations have been done with environmental bodies to create these aims and objectives? What training of staff has been done to educate them on the seriousness of this issue? There is much professional guidance and skill needed to move to a zero carbon world which are not currently being used.

4.2.3 The word 'consideration' (of low carbon energy sources) is not obliging developers to include them. It should read "To oblige the installation of low carbon energy sources as part of development proposals."
We all know that the developers' priority is profit, and so they will not include low carbon energy sources unless they are MADE to. This is a weak loophole that developers will take advantage of. It will result in failure for new buildings to make any significant progress toward net zero. Necessary retrofitting is inevitable.

4.2.4 The last resort objective will inevitably result in significant administration, salary and carbon costs which could be avoided if 4.2.3 was implemented in a meaningful way.

5.6 1, 2 & 3 Again we are seeing the use of the word "considering" rather than obliging developers to comply with tthe regulations that are being set in order to get to net zero.
What consultation has been done with environmentally sustainable concious bodies to advise practical measures to inform council staff and developers? There are other carbon issues to consider when developments are under way such as vegetation destruction, particularly mature trees which absorb carbon, the biodiversity loss (often avoidably), the cycle routes which should be completed before the houses are constructed rather than later, such as the situation with the estate on Europa Way where residents cannot even walk safely into town, but must drive.

The regulations to lower carbon emissions should be extended to retrofitting, not just new buildings.

What independent environmental sustainability bodies are monitoring the efficacy of proposals? I am concerned that the council does not have a realistic approach or the skills necessary to assess and implement the changes necessary. We are all stakeholders and transparency is crucial.

8.1 The offsetting of vegetation planting is not viable if the vegetation does not survive. It is the nature of profit based organisations to fail to maintain and support vegetation as it is cheaper to re-plant, as is the protocol for the massiveily high carbon / high cost HS2 project. There need to be measures to invalidate the offsetting if it does not survive the climate changes happening now and over the next 3 decades. Droughts, additionally fierce storm damage and flooding are caused by the high carbon infrastructure / built environment in the first place.
8.6 There is an opportunity to introduce re-wilding as the most efficient carbon reduction system and climate change reducer.

Ideally there would be natural resources available such as hemp farms for hempcrete in Warwickshire itself. Would the council support such projects?