Preferred Options 2025
Search representations
Results for Turley search
New searchYes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy-H- Water Efficiency?
Representation ID: 102876
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Turley
The University is supportive of the principle of improving water efficiency in new development. However, they would question the reference to 4 credits under the WAT01 measure with regards to BREAAM, given that achieving ‘Outstanding’ requires 2 credits under this category. For certain types of use within the campus, achieving 4 credits under WAT01 is likely to be very challenging (e.g. student accommodation with a high concentration of ensuite facilities).
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy G- Climate Resilient Design?
Representation ID: 102877
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Turley
The University agrees with the principle behind this policy and the importance of new development and changes to existing buildings being resilient and flexible to future changes in climate.
The University would welcome the proposed checklist being shared prior to its inclusion in the next stage of the Local Plan and would be pleased to work with the Council’s as this checklist is developed.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction- 24- Embodied carbon?
Representation ID: 102879
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Turley
Clarification on elements of the draft policy direction requested.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 23- Reducing Energy Consumption in Existing Buildings?
Representation ID: 102883
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Turley
Suggests review and amendment to proposed wording. Clarification on certain elements requested.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction-22- Net Zero Carbon Buildings?
Representation ID: 102884
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Turley
Recommends consideration be given to wording of this policy and how the requirements might impact on varying types of non residential development. Clarification requested on various criterion. University would be pleased to input to next steps with regards to a net zero policy.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy-F- Decentralised Energy Systems?
Representation ID: 102885
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Turley
Recommend reviewing wording.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy D: Large Scale Renewable Energy Generation and Storage?
Representation ID: 102887
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Turley
Clarification sought on what is meant by large scale? Profit sharing/community ownership not considered appropriate for energy generating development on the University of Warwick campus. Flexibility regarding the precise squares shown on figure 16 is required. Will not be possible to provide solar PV's on all development within the squares. Suggest wording amends to part 3 re wind energy. Clarification on part 2 requested. Note that co location of energy storage facilities with renewable energy development not always most appropriate/achievable.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction-17- A Low carbon Economy?
Representation ID: 102889
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Turley
Query re wording used.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 14- Major Investment Sites (MIS)?
Representation ID: 102892
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Turley
Clarity requested on why the site of planning permission ref W/23/1095 is excluded from the MIS.7 boundary. Education should be added to MIS.7. University development is not dependent on A46 link road - this wording should be amended.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction-13-Core Opportunity Area?
Representation ID: 102893
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Turley
Wording of the policy re road capacity to be reconsidered.
