Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D2?
Local Plan Q27b)
| Responder id | Responder name | Content name | Question | Answer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 405 | martin | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 27b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D2? | New residential developments and changes of use (even those covered as permitted development_ should be 4 star, not 3 and include a cooling strategy and proposals to reduce water consumption and waste, regardless of the size of the development. |
| 456 | felicity_wood | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 27b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D2? | Agree it's really important to consider the impact of the built environment on people's health and wellbeing and make sure new development promotes this. |
| 538 | markbartonrn | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 27b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D2? | Very small developments ie single houses etc should be exempt otherwise cost driven up at loss of diversity in contradiction to your planning proposals |
| 579 | adrian.broome | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 27b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D2? | Standards are NOT HIGH ENOUGH> |
| 764 | sc.munro | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 27b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D2? | |
| 784 | trevor_mose | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 27b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D2? | absolutely supportive of this - critical to the primary theme of the plan - possibly too much as a single policy - good to see health impacts recognised. not sure about BREEAM for everything. BREEAM can result in overly designed solutions and this might miss opportunities of other accreditation through passive technologies especially in the context of cooling strategies. and why more onerous bREEAM for different size development |
| 792 | laura.lax | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 27b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D2? | We are very supportive of the inclusion of this policy in the plan. We particularly support the water efficiency paragraph highlighting the need to reduce water consumption and incorporate measure for re-use where appropriate. We welcome the requirement to restrict daily water consumption to 110 litres per person per day. |
| 793 | charlotte.gerada | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 27b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D2? | Ideally passive house standards should be aimed for |
| 812 | anna.koor | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 27b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D2? | The pervasive language in this document is ‘seeks to’ - this is weak and completely open to abuse. We need to make sure that any future masterplanning removes the potential for leaving an area surrounding a new development utterly bereft of any positive impacts - see Gunwharf Quays. BREEAM excellence should apply to all residential developments. |
| 816 | rachelmhudson | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 27b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D2? | I don't know anything about the Homes Quality Mark or BEEAM schemes. However, 'encouraged' and 'consideration' of these seems awfully weak. We need all buildings to be zero carbon by 2050. Not convinced we'll get there with these sorts of words. 'Required' seems more appropriate. |
22 rows found
Page 1 of 3