To receive any apologies for absence.

None.

To receive any Declarations of Interest.

None.

To consider the above call-in.

The Chairman invited Members who asked for the decision to be called to explain their reasons for the request and what they feel should be reviewed.

Councillor Da Costa said his concern was regarding the planning documents and ISPS, which would allow developments that would adversely contribute to climate change. If the ISPS was not improved, there would be sizeable retrofit costs to install energy saving measures and green transport solutions into substandard developments. Other councils had stipulated standards that would allow developers and residents to achieve Passivhaus standards, net-zero developments, zero-carbon transportation, mobility solutions and significant restoration of biodiversity by creation of new habitats. Councillor Da Costa proposed the Panel to refer the decision back to the decision-maker for reconsideration, with the following concerns:

1. There were concerns about the lack of collaboration, consultation and scrutiny for a document that was critical in achieving the borough’s environmental commitments.
2. That the Council commit to producing a revised ISPS within 6 months, which would include the best aspects suggested by RBWM Climate Emergency Coalition (CEC), East Berkshire Green Party and other councils, and involve members and stakeholders in the process.
3. That the Council commit to updating the ISPS every 6 months until a quality Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) or Development Planning Document (DPD) was produced, the updated ISPS to incorporate the best practices then in force with other municipalities, and consult with stakeholders and members.

The Vice Chairman said the call-in was not in relation to the content of the ISPS but the process. He received emails from RBWM CEC - which was created by the council for consulting on matters such as the ISPS - and the Green party, expressing their dissatisfaction with the document. He said the borough failed to ask for feedback on the ISPS and felt responses from consultations did not lead to action. There was a need to define the process, and for it to be stipulated in the Constitution if it was not already.

Dr Graham Owens, public speaker representing the Borough’s Climate Emergency Coalition, said the ISPS should be published and be superseded by a full RWBM Sustainability Position Statement within three months. This needed to becomplemented by a revised Sustainable Design and Construction SPD as soon as possible.Dr Owens stated the six gaps in the ISPS:

1. For new build, Embodied Carbon was at least as important as Operational Carbon and must be included.
2. Effective means of incentivising developers and professional advisors was needed and must try harder on environmental sustainability. A comprehensive Carbon Tax was necessary for both Embodied and Operational Carbon.
3. Energy Use Intensity targets for Operational Carbon should be set, which was an effective way of maximising on-site renewables with additional renewable energy off-site.
4. Peer-reviewed and independent guidance on carbon reduction and sustainability should be used.
5. 87% of existing building stock would still be in use in 2050; it should be encouraged to reuse, regenerate, and upgrade these resources.
6. The top priority had to be reducing carbon emissions now.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.