Development Management Development Plan (DPD)

Comment

Representation ID: 987

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

To be consistent with other policies in this DPD and the CAAP the policy on floorspace calculation to support conversion should be on Gross Internal Area, rather than Net Internal Area

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: 991

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The Council's approach needs to be flexible enough to respond to changes in emerging / adopted Government policy

Object

Representation ID: 992

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The governmental policy objective for all developments after 2016 to be "Zero Carbon" is particularly onerous and is likely to have a significant effect on development delivery. Introducing this into Southend before required and during a market recession, may have a severe negative effect on developments coming forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 993

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

There should be a Borough - wide low carbon standard

Comment

Representation ID: 994

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

In the absence of any information on how and where the Council would seek to facilitate the delivery of decentralised energy networks within specified areas in the borough, and alternative options, it is not possible to make a reasoned response to this question.

Comment

Representation ID: 995

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The policy may need to consider carbon use in the construction supply chain, including reuse of construction materials on- and off-site

Object

Representation ID: 996

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Generally support thrust of preferred option. However policy to require full planning applications for developments affecting the setting of locally listed buildings is too onerous and contrary to planning law and governmental guidance.
We consider that all the main historical issues have been considered by the Council