Testun llawn:
Dear Sir/Madam
Regarding: East of Kenilworth Development Brief consultation response
I have a concern that the development brief uses the word 'sustainable' throughout the brief e.g. 'creation of sustainable mixed communities' however I can not find a detailed definition of the word sustainable.
Firstly, my apologies if I have missed this and the definition provided already satisfies the issues raised in my following response. If this is the case I would appreciate it if you could provide me the relevant reference.
The word 'sustainable' without a strict definition seems to be meaningless greenwash as it can be satisfied by any development proposal.
Given that the development is expected to be completed over a period of 10 years and is being proposed at the same time that the Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change has stated that we have 12 years to sort out our unsustainable tenure on earth before critical global temperature increases will become inevitable and catastrophic I think that the definition of 'sustainable' needs to be fit for purpose and the future.
This is a great opportunity for Kenilworth and all developers involved to showcase the planning and building practices that are required now and into the future.
To this end all properties need to have the requirement that they are 'eco positive' i.e. that they generate more energy than they consume. This is required to offset the deficit that will be incurred during building, although this should be minimised, and also to make a positive impact on the current overall unsustainability of Kenilworth.
I see this approach as a win-win on many fronts:-
* The prestige for Kenilworth as being seen nationally as having grasped the significance of the IPCC report that it is not 'carry on as normal'
* The residents that will have pride in where they live
* The developers that will have the opportunity to develop and showcase the environmental standards that they can achieve. A 'level playing field' will be presented to them as the whole development will have to comply.
* The residents that will not face the danger of fuel poverty and will be protected from the inevitable rise in the cost of energy.
* The residents that will have properties that are designed for the future and will be a premium product on the housing market.
I trust also that the development going forward will comply with the recent draft guidelines that NICE have issued which cover that fact that 'Pedestrians, cyclists and public transport should be given priority over cars when roads are built or upgraded'. Guidelines that the Department of Transport support stating its own guidance "is crystal clear that street design should explicitly consider pedestrians and cyclists first".
This development should be able to claim that it contributes to reducing the level of air pollution in Kenilworth in line with the 'Clean Air Strategy' published by the Government today. The target for this strategy seems to be 2030 which coincides with the IPCC report and near to the completion date of this development.
I hope that all involved realise that we require a step change in our thinking for future housing developments if we are to build for the future. At this stage this will probably require more work and battles against the status quo. It would be an easier option to replicate other housing developments rather than leading the way but a missed opportunity and a grave mistake.
Yours Faithfully
Robert Barry