Q-S7.1: Please provide any comments you have on the emissions estimation modelling for the five growth options

It is important to consider what options would be best the different options have their own error margins and assumptions. This must also be balanced against the need of society during a cost of living crisis and wider long term housing crisis with an associated lack of economic opportunities. Growth must be the first priority, with the specifics of the proposal taking steps to be as green as possible. For much of the desired growth, especially vital rural growth some of the options such as rail, and even bus reliance, are not feasible. A sustainable economy unfortunately is not possible if it has to use/or is limited by public transport. Society relies on private transport regardless of whether it is in urban or rural locations, the only difference is one of density.

The minor variation between the scenarios, i.e. about 10% variance in cumulative emissions between best and worst between 2025 and 2050, is probably similar to the margin of error and therefore insignificant . The reversal in annual emissions in 2030 is presumably dependent on the prohibition of ICE vehicles from that year but this effect would be complicated by the source of energy used to charge electric vehicles and the energy used in their production. For example an electric car produced in Germany has high production emissions compared to one produced in France due to the greater use of coal fired power in German manufacturing. The modelling seems to be transport only. Emissions from the built environment should also be considered as these are likely to be higher than transport emissions over time.

The emissions estimates can only be considered as a guess as the abolition of new car / van sales with fossil fuels in 2030 will likely cause the continued use (beyond their sell-by date) of a large number of cars / vans due to the inflated cost of electric vehicles and the absence of charging points within the rural areas of South Warwickshire. Alternative technologies have not yet been developed in suitable volume to change the posittion, which is outside of the scope of this Plan.

Does not make sense to base emission modelling on rail. South Warwickshire is a mainly rural area and cars and vehicles are and will remain to be vital for domestic , business and leisure purposes for the foreseeable future. What we should be planning is much improved public transport.

These seen as a conservative estimations and may not consider the recent trend of increase of energy prices and potential of local residents opting for heating by more polluting sources

The emissions output for new development seems to contradict the general global agenda for reduction. No new development = no emissions...!!!!!

Variation is too small to be credible - these predictions have big error margins

See my comments on question S5.1. Models are totally dependent on the assumptions put into them. If the assumptions are wrong, so are the models.

Each option would involve development of the North Leamington green belt. This is problematic for a number of reasons - which the green belt is there to protect against. The five purposes of Green Belt land are to: ● check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas ● prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another ● assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment ● preserve the setting and special character of historic towns ● assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban lan The consultation should include options which do not involve development in the green belt in line with government policy and future rural preservation and productivity requirements. The proposition that Green Belt serves no legitimate function and can be ‘switched off’ as an academic exercise flies in the face of the significant contributions that Warwick District Council and Stratford District Council have themselves noted that Green Belt designation makes.

Estimations seem very similar but dispersed seems greater than economy, unsurprisingly.

What assumptions have been made about changes in technology over the next 30 years? Not just electric vehicles but also driverless cars and the potential for a large reduction in car ownership, need for parking and roads?. The cost of hiring driverless cars for most journeys will make the costs of owning a car seem excessive. How have these possibilities been factored into the modelling?

Does the modelling take into account the reduction in CO2 absorption if green belt land is developed?

Vital to clearly state the assumptions used, with numeric dimensions, and link to actual delivery of national policy on the ground. This should be reviewed 3-yearly.

The lowest total emissions for the plan period is option 3 - Economy

The modelling demonstrates that the most appropriate spatial growth option for the SWLP is to focus on the growth of existing settlements with a railway station and with scope to provide for the types of employment and housing growth that will help to sustain South Warwickshire in the future. Henley-in-Arden comprises one such settlement with a significant landholding under a single ownership that can meet not only Henley-in-Arden’s but Stratford’s economic and social needs for the next decade and beyond.

Emissions figures considering Lapworth rail station as a viable transport option for residents are misguided and naive given it is easy to establish that services are so infrequent as to make the station an unreliable and unrealistic transport option for local residents.

There seems little difference in the figures provided for the different options especially in the long-term. Given the many assumptions that must be involved in making these estimates, how significant are these small differences?

None. Too far in the future.

There seems little difference in the emissions figures provided for the various options, especially in the long-term. Given the many assumptions that must be involved in these estimates, how signifcant are these difference?

Differences look marginal and within error boundaries - no clear difference is apparent to me.

Do not make emissions and increase in population an excuse to destroy the rural villages, as the move to electric cars, electric buses, electric trains and other progress on sustainable power sources for those services will naturally be part of the climate change support going forward. Destroying the villages, history and nature is not a responsible solution for improvement, its just a short sighted need to hit targets. Focus on sustainable services and limiting immigration numbers is key to both climate and progress.

The minor variation between the scenarios, i.e. about 10% variance in cumulative emissions between best and worst between 2025 and 2050, is probably similar to the margin of error and therefore insignificant . The reversal in annual emissions in 2030 is presumably dependent on the prohibition of ICE vehicles from that year but this effect would be complicated by the source of energy used to charge electric vehicles and the energy used in their production. For example an electric car produced in Germany has high production emissions compared to one produced in France due to the greater use of coal fired power in German manufacturing. The modelling seems to be transport only. Emissions from the built environment should also be considered as these are likely to be higher than transport emissions over time.

It is noted that none of the options include change in emissions from buildings thus emissions from transport is effectively the only variable used in climate change analysis, although it is widely recognised that building emissions is almost equally significant. The plan must recognise the potential impact of funding decision by the authorities. For example, a higher proportion of publicly owned housing (LA and HA) has a greater potential to reduce emissions than privately owned if it became a priority as suggested in V3-2 above.

As described in our response to Issue I1, the Sustainability Appraisal has serious weaknesses and shouldn’t be used to compare the spatial growth options. Equally, the emissions modelling is inadequate and should not be used: see our response to QS5.1.

Emissions will increase according to the strategic growth plan. This is a blatant disregard for the healthy environment you are advocating for the development of hundreds of houses.

Load of rubbish, should be explained more clearly for the layman to understand the implications.

NOT reviewing the green belt hasn’t been considered as a clear option, in line with Sustainability Appraisals requirements. This key designation retains open areas for wildlife, stops settlements joining and works with designations outside of S Warks. With more people working from home, other services rather than just the transport network should be included in the assessment. Greater weight should have also been given to impact on biodiversity and LWS’s and PLWSs.

With the headlong rush for building in south Warwickshire emissions will increase away from the charts shown.

It is not possible as a lay person to comment meaningfully on this but it would be interesting to know what assumptions have been made when the model was created.

Same answer as before. The variance in the cumulative carbon emission figures between each of the options is so low that the figures should be ignored. In every case the difference will almost certainly be substantially smaller than the margin of error in the production of the report