I deplore the decision regarding St Margarets House, Whitnash where double glazing was refused. This should have been passed on the grounds of energy conservation.

If the 10% requirement had been in place when Chase Meadow was planned solar panels could have been built in from the inception. Surely at least 25% of energy could have been produced locally.

In Canada municipal buildings are heated and lit by the people inside, when will this technology be commonplace in buildings here?

Applauds the decision to use permeable paving on all drives.

Paragraph 8.4 needs to be updated to reflect the removal of permitted development rights to pave front gardens making them impermeable. Furthermore this paragraph should clearly state that normally planning permission will not be given for such impermeable paving should it be applied for.

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.