Government refuses to allow more than 10% CO2 reduction on new developments?

Our District Council has finally printed it's Draft Supplementary Planning Advice on Renewable Energy on our Council website.

At last there is a proposal for new developments to have 10% reduction in CO2 emissions on 1000m2 or 10 residential units. This is in my view is much too low - but it is a start.

Greens have been seeking such advice for years - and repeatedly written letters and asked formal questions to Council (see example here). Even the cross-party Development Control Committee, that I used to sit on, has been making increasingly vocal complaints about how they cannot insist on green measures for new developments. If this advice goes through, as I fully expect it to, then it will at least start to change the climate - but why so long to wait for this??

In my efforts to try and increase the figure from 10% to something more significant I entered into correspondence with officers and others. I enclose below a very edited summary of some of the points made to give some indication about why the District does not feel able to go for a higher figure. I would welcome more advice and comments but from what Officers and others are saying it is a brave Council (or foolish) that defies the Government and tries to implement it's own Planning Advice above the 10%. Below all that is some further correspondence over Building Regulations.

Stop press: 17th July - information coming in about how we can still possibly go down the Woking route - more on this blog site very soon. Meanwhile the Cabinet member has called it in to be looked at by Scrutiny Committee: good on her - it seems all are working to get best result - but this legislation is not the easiest to work around.

In Green are my emails and blue are some of the responses from officers and others: please bear in mind these are very edited, but hopefully still give the jist of the debate:

As noted at the Environment policy evening for new councillors the Government has set a much-welcomed target of new housing developments to be carbon neutral by 2016. In the light of this, Stroud's proposed Draft Supplementary Planning Advice recommendations of 10% reduction in CO2 emissions on 1000m2 or 10 residential units seems much too low. If we are to reach carbon neutral by 2016 and help tackle Climate change and Peak Oil then we need to make bolder steps now. 2016 is not far away!

Councils already operating at 10% are looking to improve significantly. Woking for example is looking at a 40% reduction in emissions against current building regs. Woking LDF (set to be adopted next year) proposes: Development will be refused unless it:
- achieves a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions (against current building regs)
- is carbon neutral (greenfield sites)
- adapts to climate change impacts in design of buildings and open spaces
- provides a sustainable water management system (runoff and potable water)

Household extensions:
- extensions to existing buildings will be required to meet best practice for energy efficiency

I consider this is the route Stroud should go - the expertise to build carbon neutral homes was developed years ago and there are some fine examples around the country that show it works.

I realise this is only a draft proposal so no doubt you are considering various options. For example if a bigger figure for reduction is not seen possible now then one other way forward might be a staged introduction: demanding 10% now, 30% in 2 years etc. This would at least give time to developers and send a strong message about the District's intentions and hopefully encourage and support the development of more 'green' businesses locally. This is a good opportunity to build a more sustainable District but as noted I would strongly argue that we need to be bolder We need to start building homes that are fit for at least the next 50 years rather than the current poor standards.

As I understand the target set by government (2016) it is not for implementation via the planning system and this SPA's main purpose is to use in the determination of planning applications. The draft supplement to PPS1 (as detailed in the appendix to the SPA) specifically advises against Local Authorities setting their own targets above 10%. It is clear that government policy is intending to enforce building performance measures through part L of the building regulations, not through planning policy, and has outlined the stepped increase towards carbon neutrality by 2016 as you describe.

It is possible that the target in the SPA will not be developed in to an SPD as the requirement in the building regs will take over. The SPD may develop in to a document that deals with the planning implications of achieving the part L target i.e. materials, design, orientation etc and the need for these to be considered early in the planning process.

Unless the draft PPS1 changes, I would suggest Woking will not be successful with their LDD that sets a 40% target above current part L. If it is successful I imagine it will be because part L is likely to have been revised by then and Woking's policy will therefore be consistent with it, but why have planning policy that duplicates the building regulations? Government advice has previously been not to duplicate controls. The energy performance of buildings has historically been managed via the building regulations and it appears that this is set to continue.

If we ignore the supplement to PPS1 and refuse planning applications on the basis that they are not meeting SDC's own target we will not be able to defend cases at appeal and such refusals are highly likely to be considered unreasonable by an inspector.

You note that the draft PPS1 advises against setting our own targets above 10% - as noted at the Policy Panel this would appear to be a serious interference with local authorities own decisions to be bolder - particularly in the absence of action by the Government?

However the words used in the Guidance are that 'local authorities are recommended not to set their own arbitary targets'. We could surely argue that we are not seeking an arbitary target but one which is not only realistic and necessary if we are to tackle climate change? 10% is clearly very much too low in the light of the IPCC reports which apparently this weekare viewed by a NASA team as being 'absurdly optimistic'.

This week we also hear disturbingly that the Government is apparently aware that target cuts of 60% by 2050 is too little too late but fears losing the support of the Confederation of British Industry if it acts. Already we see our Government refusing to adopt the EU target of 20% renewables by 2020. It is vital we see some leadership on this critical issue. As one commentator put it 'we need a government that fears planetary meltdown more than it fears the CBI.'

As you will know the PPS1 Consultation document notes:
Planning authorities should ..engage constructively and imaginatively with developers to encourage the delivery of sustainable buildings...

...Higher standards for new homes are set out in the Code for Sustainable Homes.Where planning authorities wish to require higher levels of building performance, because of local development or site specific opportunities, the expected local approach should be set out in advance in a development plan document.

For new homes, local standards should be based on the Code for Sustainable Homes.

... In considering and justifying a local approach, planning authorities should (focus on) securing an earlier application of higher levels of performance of nationally described standards, for example by expecting identified development proposals to be delivered at higher levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes...

Surely this leaves us more room to move to higher targets? Locally there is strong support that we need bold action: the consultation around the Environment Strategy supports this view. The recent Richard Heinberg presentation only adds support to the need to act. There could also be considerable advantage to local construction companies and developers in getting ahead of the curve and meeting tomorrows targets today.

Woking and others in the past have argued effectively that their targets are needed. Are there reasons as to why this is not possible for us?At the very least could we not be noting in this document that our targets will increase? The consultation planning policy statement notes the need for 'a clear and realistic timeline' for new standards to be applied.

I understand from Thamesway Ltd that Woking are proceeding with their 40% target: it would also appear that they have evidence to support this action and are very confident of winning any appeal. Would it be possible to talk further with them about what might be possible?

An additional issue was raised by another councillor who said that we don't want more than 10% as we have significant areas of AONB. It should be noted that firstly the vast majority of measures needed to secure these targets do not need to have any serious visual impact or indeed in many cases any visual impact - and unless we act there will not be any AONB left.

I do understand the reasoning behind the proposals put forward in this paper - councils wanting to lead on this issue do not appear to have been given an easy way forward. As you note there is the likelihood that building regs will take over (this area is after all usually the preserve of building regs). However I nevertheless would like to see a more bold statement even if this is eventually superceded by building regs in the future. If other Councils are seeking this route is it not something we could do?

We need to consider the target in the context of supplementary planning advice which is not a document that has much statutory weight, if we are to go above 10% then this would need to be in the context of a document that has been through the full process and is site specific to enable it to become a Local Development Document. If we chose to go above 10% in this advice it would devalue it as a planning tool as it only has any weight by virtue of its reference to the draft legislation. With respect to the PPS1 quotes, my comments are in pale blue.......

Planning authorities should ..engage constructively and imaginatively with developers to encourage the delivery of sustainable buildings. I agree wholeheartedly, this will be an important part of the SPA in having the debate early in the planning process as efficiency measures are likely to impact on design, siting and materials. Obviously if the buildings are efficient as a consequence of their design materials and siting then it is far easier to generate a 10% reduction from on site Renewables.

...Higher standards for new homes are set out in the Code for Sustainable Homes. Where planning authorities wish to require higher levels of building performance, because of local development or site specific opportunities, the expected local approach should be set out in advance in a development plan document. This is in reference to individual opportunities which would be an issue to be taken up in policies that relate to specific sites or locations i.e. next to a weir or next to an existing district heating system which is capable of extension. The 10% is the limit to a broad expectation but does not stop a higher expectation (to be set out in a DPD) where site specific circumstances can be justified.

For new homes,local standards should be based on the Code for Sustainable Homes. This is only where local development or site specific factors apply and not intended to be across the whole district.

You missed a bit from the quote... In considering and justifying a local approach, planning authorities should (focus on) SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND securing an earlier application of higher levels of performance of nationally described standards, for example by expecting identified development proposals to be delivered at higher levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes...

also.......Para 31 prior to Para 32 that you mention above states that Planning authorities should not need, however to devise their own standards for the environmental performance of individual buildings as these are set out nationally through the building regulations.

Within Para 32 'avoid setting out across broad areas requirements for specific performance measures for buildings'. I am assuming that this would be anything over 10%.

When we get elected as councillors few of us can claim to be experts and it is always a challenge to get a grasp of a subject and try to push forward policy. This correspondence has been frustrating and highlights again how controlling central government appears to be. Interestingly a comment from another Green party councillor on one of our email lists highlighted some of my own concerns. She writes:

My big, big concern over leaving this concept of zero carbon to govt is its way of calculating the figures! The last change to building regs was going to give us new builds that were 40% better, the govt (eventually) admitted that the final regs would only give 25% better, but in fact if you talk to AECB etc the actual figures are much much lower. And this is after they kicked out the recommendation that if you applied for building regs for an extension you would need to spend 10% of the extensions costs on bringing the rest of your home towards current building regs standard!

And this doesn't include renovation. Now when an extension becomes a major renovation is a hard line to draw, but with most of our current leaky homes still being here in 2016, I can't see that a few govt standard zero homes will make much difference. REquiring renovations to go the root of MVHR, esp when so many of these renovations feature internal bathrooms and kitchens which have ot be vented anyway!

And don't forget their hasty withdrawal of the "Codes for homes" one of the few chances to get to people when they but a new home and are then very likely to be thinking of new work to that building.

Last year I read George Monbiot's article re Building Inspectors - it is worth a read - as it highlights the terrible situation we are in when it comes to Building Regs - an issue I also raised with our District's Planning department. See article here. It starts:

For 21 years builders in this country have been legally bound to construct homes which conserve energy. The building regulations tell them how much insulation they must use, what kind of windows they must fit and how good their draught-proofing will be. Guess how many builders have been prosecuted in that period for non-compliance. I won’t keep you in suspense. The answer is none.

There could be only one good reason for this: that they are building houses so well that enforcement is unnecessary. But a study conducted by the Building Research Establishment, looking at just one factor (the rate at which cold air leaks in) found that 43% of the new houses it checked should have been failed by the inspectors(3). All of them had been passed. In some homes the requisite amount of insulation had been left in the lofts, but it was still tied up in bales(4). No one has been prosecuted because no one gives a damn.

A new survey of the people who are supposed to enforce our building rules–building control officers–published this month by the Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes found that they treat the energy rules as a joke(5). Part of the problem is that since their profession was deregulated, many of them are involved in a standing conflict of interest. In the past, building control officers were employed by the council. Today builders hire "approved inspectors" to certify their houses. If the inspectors are too tough, they won’t be hired again. As the major parties compete to cut red tape, businesses are seldom prosecuted for anything, let alone such a petty misdemeanor as killing the planet.

Even if the officers wanted to enforce the rules, it is hard to see how they could. They inspect homes only towards the end of construction, when it is too late to see what’s inside the walls.....

In Stroud the Council retains some Building Inspectors but developers can happily choose to go to a private company. Here's a comment from a planner:

The approved inspector (AI) system is one based on risk assessment, that is to say, the risk of an owner suing the builder, and through contract, the AI. The risk equates to premiums, which are passed on inevitably to the purchaser. An interesting element is that in many case the insurance cover is limited, as is the liability of the AI (being a limited company).

Where the failure, fault and compensation are easy to assign the system would appear to be acceptable to the parties involved. My worry, and that of other local authority employed surveyors is that when the issue is involves the national priorities such as energy conservation and security of supply, an insurance based system may not be suitable. Whilst I cannot see central government pulling back from the competition in building control services, it is my opinion that local authorities who take energy conservation seriously, review their ability to compete in the market.

Anyhow I'll finish there for now as I've written much more than intended but as noted I would welcome advice and comments if there are those who can see a way through this.