Yes

Representation ID: 86095

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 86468

Received: 26/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs vivien bryer

Very sound reasoning.

Yes

Representation ID: 86675

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

Double Glazing to Listed Buildings - Requirements such as "No double glazing in listed buildings" need to be revisited. Listed buildings should use every reasonable methods to reduce energy usage.

No

Representation ID: 86925

Received: 31/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Arthur Hogan-Fleming

Not competitive or workable

Yes

Representation ID: 87073

Received: 03/02/2025

Respondent: S Gardner

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 87174

Received: 05/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Bryan Hay

Sensible approach.

Yes

Representation ID: 87405

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

Again, how can heritage buildings be encouraged / supported to be more energy efficient taking advantage of new technologies?

No

Representation ID: 87585

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: mrs susan morris

I do not agree

Yes

Representation ID: 88712

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Agree

Yes

Representation ID: 89266

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Jon Knight

Supporting building standards and requirements that improve the "negawatts" at building (doesn't) consume is good. Again I'd ask whether some of the "should" items can be turned into "must" to enforce the requirements?

Yes

Representation ID: 89475

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

I love the conversation areas. Yes we do need conversations about conservation areas and the challenges of retrofitting to achieve energy savings.

Yes

Representation ID: 90497

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Jayne Jones

agree

Yes

Representation ID: 91179

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Radford Semele Parish Council

Radford Semele Parish Council supports the suggestions.

Yes

Representation ID: 91673

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Norman

Sensible

Other

Representation ID: 91769

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Taylor

there is no mention of how this support will be given - advice? Finance?

Yes

Representation ID: 92465

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Agree

Yes

Representation ID: 92582

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Fairburn

I support the desire to see buildings improved to the EnerPHit Passivhaus standard. That said, a true EnerPHit retrofit might add a huge cost to a project where the homeowner is only extending slightly beyond permitted development distances. Perhaps the solution is to require the home to achieve a certain heat-loss improvement overall without the need to achieve the EnerPHit Passivhaus standard 100%.

Yes

Representation ID: 92625

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Bex Thomson

No comment

Yes

Representation ID: 92969

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Alison Blake

This clearly has to be part of the plan to reduce energy

Yes

Representation ID: 93137

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Penny Gray

Totally support these proposals.

Yes

Representation ID: 93187

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Checkley

I fully support Draft Policy Direction 23

Yes

Representation ID: 93246

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Coulsting

I agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 23- Reducing Energy Consumption in Existing Buildings

No

Representation ID: 93580

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Robin Rumbles

The priority has to be for renewal energy to take precedence over history. It is right to ensure our history is protected but not al the total exclusion of renewals. Local planning officers must become more receptive to allowing renewable energy solution on both historic buildings and those buildings in conservation areas.

The plan should work to better support residents in transferring to renewal energy. I have funded my own solar panels and battery. The cost of installing a air source heat pump owing to having to replace all the radiators and piping (£30,000 has been quoted).

Yes

Representation ID: 93666

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Cllr David Armstrong

Yes, however the policy should make it explicit that minor changes in appearance for the purposes of energy efficiency are acceptable even in the context of heritage assets and areas. Ideally, specific examples of appropriate retrofitting that would typically be approved (e.g. double glazing replacement with appropriate material windows) should be given.

Yes

Representation ID: 93824

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Warwick District Green Party

-We are pleased to see reference to LETI and Passivhaus, but this policy direction needs to set out clearly when each standard should be required.
-The AECB CarbonLite Retrofit Standard is better for traditional buildings and also considers many more retrofit risks.
-Alternatively, PAS 2035 (for domestic buildings) & Trustmark could be required as it has consumer protection and QA embedded in it. For non domestic buildings, PAS 2038 should be used.
-The policy relies heavily on EPCs for domestic buildings, although this system is due to be replaced.

Yes

Representation ID: 94395

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Waters

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 94797

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Jackson

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 94985

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

no further comment

Other

Representation ID: 95745

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Dyhouse

Cost of retrofitting older buildings is substantial and not always within the means of the owner.

Yes

Representation ID: 95799

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Shelagh Marshall

I agree with this sound and hopefully practical policy.