Sustainability Draft Supplementary Planning Document
Search representations
Results for Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation search
New searchSupport
Sustainability Draft Supplementary Planning Document
Community Energy Schemes
Representation ID: 10397
Received: 08/02/2024
Respondent: Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation
Pleased to see the inclusion of this reference.
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
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.
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
Remarks that Waste, Passive Design and WLC should be more stretching.
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
Objections about not being stretching enough, the inclusion of BREEAM and Nabers.
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
Same objections before about the table not being stretching, consistent or clear enough
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
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.
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.