Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D4?
Local Plan Q29b)
| Responder id | Responder name | Content name | Question | Answer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 405 | martin | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 29b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D4? | "Major development up to 250 dwellings, or non-domestic uses of more than 500 sqm, will need to demonstrate that they have explored ....." - too vague. If the development is this size and it does not include some form of communal heating, it ought to have a really good and specific reason - not just the option of saying "we looked at it and decided it was not viable" |
| 716 | clareseek | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 29b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D4? | Would like to see this go further....there appears to be a lot of 'demonstrate exploring' which doesn't mean they actually have to do anything other than research it and then not do it? |
| 746 | mgmitchell | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 29b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D4? | The Plan should focus on reducing Carbon. Offsetting has not wroked well on a national level and I don't think it should be included in the Plan. |
| 784 | trevor_mose | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 29b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D4? | the policy should be stronger in the pursuit of zero carbon energy and actively seek the avoidance of development reliant on gas, oil in favour of renewable sources. the proposal for an offset fund should not be exploited by those who wish to avoid taking action to reduce carbon. |
| 812 | anna.koor | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 29b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D4? | The council’s carbon offset fund should not be used by developers as a get-out clause for failing to fully tackle carbon emissions. See below. It should not be regarded as a respectable or viable alternative. |
| 823 | n.sebley | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 29b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D4? | By including caveats such as: 'where this is possible' and 'were practicable and viable' the policy is rendered ineffectual. Also using non-binding formulations such as developers are 'encouraged' to explore the use of small scale renewable energy technologies or 'must investigate opportunities' leaves the door wide open for business as usual. There's no evidence that 'encouraging' private property develops do the right thing has worked or will work. Measures need to be incorporated now to ensure new developments are helping lower our city carbon emissions. The UN are absolutely clear: emission cuts need to happen now and at scale- not 'encouraged' in non-binding ways nor kicked down the road, once all the policy makers have left their posts |
| 844 | hyeomans | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 29b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D4? | No |
| 846 | morrism | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 29b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D4? | Balanced with the residents being able to afford the services. Should there also be charging points for electric vehicles? Bicycles are not the answer. |
| 848 | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 29b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D4? | It doesn't go far enough. We should be reducing carbon emissions by more than 20%. | |
| Reg18_11 | meghan.rossiter | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 29b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D4? | As with the comments above, the 2020 Viability Report should be updated to test the specific policy expectations set out in the draft plan to ensure that higher standards not disproportionately affect the delivery of affordable housing across Portsmouth. Now that the Future Homes Standard consultation has been concluded and the Government’s response published, a transitional approach to FHS should be adopted to steadily influence fabric standards, without producing a cliff-edge effect with disproportionate, damaging implications for build costs and delivery. |
18 rows found
Page 1 of 2