16. Do you agree with the suggested option?

Support

Representation ID: 373

Received: 21/07/2010

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Hircock

Insist on carbon reduction for all new buildings and help support renewable energy in existing homes.

Support

Representation ID: 474

Received: 03/08/2010

Respondent: Carole Mulroney

The highest possible standards should be maintained and incorporated into developmet schemes

Object

Representation ID: 618

Received: 07/08/2010

Respondent: Herbert Grove Residents

No, to much policy causes confusion.

Comment

Representation ID: 649

Received: 09/08/2010

Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd

Renaissance Southend supports the policy intention that all non-residential development meets the BREEAM Excellent Standard. However, this may pose severe challenges to public and private sector projects in the short/medium term on grounds of both cost and viability.

Paras.3,5&6 relate to the Code for Sustainable Homes, BREEAM and Building Regs. Greater clarity is needed on whether the policy will seek to simply meet, or exceed these standards, both regulatory and voluntary.

The 10% on site renewables policy reflects the current Adopted Core Strategy but is likely to need review before the DM DPD is adopted re comments on SCAAP.

Comment

Representation ID: 766

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 29. There is every acknowledgement that reducing carbon emissions are crucial. However the Council needs to take care with regard to local or on site energy generation in terms of its visual impact on the local environment. The placing of photovoltaic cells/solar panels on roofs and the growth of small wind turbines threatens the street scene. Moreover there is growing resistance occasioned by the noise, vibration and flicker effect of wind turbines. In order not to unduly constrain development in the Borough I think the Council should await the Govt. changes to the Building Regulations.

Comment

Representation ID: 901

Received: 20/08/2010

Respondent: DPP

Development Management Document (Issues and Options)
DPP Sustainability would like to offer a submission in respect of Section 4, 'Issue DM4 - Low
Carbon Development and Efficient Use of Resources' relating to energy usage throughout the region.
From the outset we would like to commend Southend-on-Sea Borough Council on the emphasis that is placed on sustainable energy objectives in the draft guidelines. We would like to expand on this by answering the questions proposed in the document as outlined below.

Comment

Representation ID: 902

Received: 20/08/2010

Respondent: DPP

16. Do you agree with the suggested option?
The suggested option is comprehensive in its coverage taking the energy hierarchy as its basis whereby efficiency is promoted as the starting point. However it has a bias towards the reduction of energy rather than carbon reduction methods and as such is not in line with the national sustainable policy objectives. In addition, it is felt that a greater importance and weight should be
given to this section within the guidelines. This will provide a much clearer and coherent sustainable energy policy throughout the region as a whole and ensure that prospective developments in Southend are as energy efficient as possible.
The achievement of the Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM Excellent are feasible in general circumstances. However, where exceptions occur and are explained, meaning these targets cannot be achieved, must not be allowed to prejudice the submission. Guidance on the requirements and stages to meet these requirements will also be necessary.

Support

Representation ID: 930

Received: 19/10/2010

Respondent: Environment Agency

Issue DM4: Question 16
We are in general agreement with the approach set out in the suggested option. We welcome the requirement for a minimum Code Level 4 rating, but this could also go further to require increasing ratings in line with the Government aspiration for zero carbon development by 2016. We are pleased to see a BREEAM rating of 'Excellent' for non-residential development.
We welcome all of the measures set out in parts 1-7. We are particularly interested in the water efficiency requirements and reference to your Water Cycle Study should be made and might allow more detailed requirements to be set. We would also recommend that you refer to our Thames Gateway Environmental Standards for further advice on other issues.

Object

Representation ID: 988

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

This requirement, extending to minor developments is unrealistic.
Greater emphasis should be placed on passive design to reduce energy consumption during construction and in use, as in the London Plan. The energy reduction attributable to these should be taken into account in determining the level of renewable energy production on site and/or off site contributions to say CHP facilities.
This requirement should be subject to feasibility and viability criteria.

Comment

Representation ID: 989

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

This should be an aspiration rather than an absolute requirement. Permission should be granted for schemes where not all buildings meet Code Level 5, provided that they meet other LDF objectives and / or viability information demonstrates that scheme would not come forward otherwise.

Support

Representation ID: 990

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Generally support suggested option - subject to detailed comments and linking this policy area to DM1. There is no special justification for exceeding national targets in Southend.
Need to place greater emphasis on reduction in energy use and consumption though good design and construction. To be reflected in Policy DM4 and DM10 and interrelationship with requirement for 10% renewable energy generation on-site.

Comment

Representation ID: 1268

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The design criteria do not read across to DM1.