Congratulates the Council on its clear guidance and was pleased to see the regulations apply to extensions as well as new build and to non-residential and residential development.
Liked the use of examples and advice on how to acheive energy efficiency.

It is a bit draconian to expect 10% in all circumstances given that a really well built home may only need a very small input of energy. In general agree with demanding more energy efficiency.

Uttlesford requires that extensions should not add to the energy needs of a building.

Energy efficiency should have primacy over renewables. THe developer should reduce the energy load first.

The highlighted statement implies that a building designed to the highest energy saving standards but with no renewable energy source is less acceptable than a less efficient building with a higher energy demand of which 10% is renewable. This is illogical as the non-renewable energy demand of the former will be less than the 90% of the latter. Are we not in danger of encouraging the wrong approach?

Objects to the contradiction between sections 4 and 5 with regard to new development and home extensions. There is concern that some developers may try to thwart the objectives while domestic extensions may be unreasonably denied particularly in older un insulated properties where using latest building regulations without applying renewables could acheive a greater energy saving.

Paragraph 8.4 should reflect the latest mandate that only permeable surfaces to domestic driveways shall be allowed.

It is questioned whether the renewable toolkits are representative. Do they consider acquisition in terms of carbon costs and whole life costs (reliability / maintainability) that would contribute to future carbon footprint through spares. Does the toolkit compare the relative merits of different types of renewable energy sources.