Sustainability Draft Supplementary Planning Document

Search representations

Results for Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation search

New search New search

Support

Sustainability Draft Supplementary Planning Document

Community Energy Schemes

Representation ID: 10397

Received: 08/02/2024

Respondent: Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation

Representation Summary:

Pleased to see the inclusion of this reference.

Full text:

Pleased to see the inclusion of this reference.

Comment

Sustainability Draft Supplementary Planning Document

4 Historic Buildings

Representation ID: 10398

Received: 08/02/2024

Respondent: Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation

Representation Summary:

The content here appears to be almost entirely tailored towards Listed buildings. Can North Herts include their stance on historic buildings that are not listed? For example how property owners can update their historic buildings effectively. Or recommend including specific reference to protected areas like Letchworth's design principles.

Full text:

The content here appears to be almost entirely tailored towards Listed buildings. Can North Herts include their stance on historic buildings that are not listed? For example how property owners can update their historic buildings effectively. Or recommend including specific reference to protected areas like Letchworth's design principles.

Object

Sustainability Draft Supplementary Planning Document

Appendix A - Major Residential Application

Representation ID: 10399

Received: 08/02/2024

Respondent: Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation

Representation Summary:

Remarks that Waste, Passive Design and WLC should be more stretching.

Full text:

Specific objection to waste. Construction waste can normally be 80-90% diverted from landfill. There is also confusion in recycling vs landfill in the three targets.

Suggest
Bronze - Implement a SWMP and record waste removed from site
Silver - Greater than 80% of waste diverted from landfill
Gold - PAS 402 contractor used to manage waste, demonstrating 95% diversion from landfill or greater

Passive Design Principles and WLC should be made more stretching and more specific / clear about what is targeted. For example LETI standard or equivalent is not entirely clear. Also the WLC targets could have the gold standard as <300 to meet Leti 2030 Design Target

Object

Sustainability Draft Supplementary Planning Document

Appendix C Major Non-Residential Applications

Representation ID: 10400

Received: 08/02/2024

Respondent: Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation

Representation Summary:

Objections about not being stretching enough, the inclusion of BREEAM and Nabers.

Full text:

Please include reference to Nabers rating << this would be within the Passive design and Energy Efficiency rating section, and likely be Gold standard.
BREEAM is an entire building standard, so it seems strange to throw it in the passive design section. If the council is minded to include reference to BREEAM, I'd advise that Very Good, Excellent and Outstanding are all included to be consistent. However, many of the BREEAM principles are covered throughout this SPD... therefore it could be an unnecessary burden for developments.
I've the same objections about the Waste, WLC and Passive design principles not being stretching enough

Object

Sustainability Draft Supplementary Planning Document

Appendix D Minor Non-residential Applications

Representation ID: 10401

Received: 08/02/2024

Respondent: Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation

Representation Summary:

Same objections before about the table not being stretching, consistent or clear enough

Full text:

Same objections before about the table not being stretching, consistent or clear enough

Object

Sustainability Draft Supplementary Planning Document

Appendix F Summary of requirements by devleopment type

Representation ID: 10402

Received: 08/02/2024

Respondent: Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation

Representation Summary:

Why do minor non-residential get away without Sustainable Construction considerations, but minor residential development have to consider? For consistency I'd recommend making both applicable (preference), or neither.

Full text:

Why do minor non-residential get away without Sustainable Construction considerations, but minor residential development have to consider? For consistency I'd recommend making both applicable (preference), or neither.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.