Government to stop Councils from pushing renewables

Hey I'm blogging crazy today - truth is I'm catching up on a large number of emails from while I was ill - this blog entry is full of anger as I really cannot understand this Government on this one - they are preparing to torpedo a local authority policy which has been one of the few genuine drivers of renewable energy technologies in Britain.

Photo: Nympsfield turbine viewed from Thistledown Environmental Centre

The Department for Communities and Local Government is to in effect abolish the so-called "Merton rule"- apparently under pressure from housebuilders who do not want to bear the cost of adding things like solar panels to the buildings they construct or the effort of marketing them as "green" (it is estimated 'green' homes cost 3 to 4% more). Don't they know surveys show the majority of people are prepared to pay extra for homes with such measures - in any case they pay back in only a few years - and that's before we get onto climate change.....

I did write to local press on this one but no one published - see my letter here. The Merton rule is named after the London borough that established it in 2003 - an interesting fact is that I used to be a Social Worker for Merton in 1987/8. Anyhow the rule requires any new building to reduce its carbon emissions by 10% through the use of renewables. More than 150 local authorities have either introduced it or are about to - indeed Stroud is discussing it next week - and don't get me on that either - why have they taken so *************** long to get to that stage (see many previous blog entries) - and now the Government could scupper the whole lot!

Basically in the absence of a proper interest in renewables from central government, the Merton rule has become central to tentative steps towards a low carbon future. Now housing minister Yvette Cooper, who last year wanted all local authorities to adopt a Merton rule, is drafting a planning policy statement which outlines the abolition of the rule.

Apart from taking yet more powers away from local authorities this makes no sense at all. The government at least still has it's plan for new homes to be zero carbon from 2016 - but I now fear that may also face pressures - could they drop that as well - in any case renewable industry folk say the Merton Rule is many times more important to them than the government's low carbon buildings programme, which provides grants but has repeatedly run out of money
and had its rules changed.

The U-turn on the Merton rule makes a mockery of the consultation: half of all respondents supported the Merton rule and only three of 324 objected to it on grounds of cost. Here's my letter to Yvette Cooper below, plus a comment re the Lib Dems recent announcement re going Zero-Carbon and here's a link to the petition - please sign:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/LOWcarbonfuture/

Yvette Cooper Housing Minister
Department for Communities and Local Government
Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DU

Dear Yvette Cooper,

Re: "Merton Rule"

It is reported that your new draft planning policy statement will outline the abolition of this rule. This is crazy. More than 150 local authorities have introduced this rule or are about to including Stroud District Council of which I am a member.

Climate change could wipe out most of life on earth if it is not checked. We have a responsibility to do as much as possible, as quickly as possible. If local authorities consider that they can introduce planning policies to increase the amount of micro-generation, they should be encouraged, not prevented.

In any case, PPG 1 already states: (19) "Significant adverse impacts on the environment should be avoided and alternative options which might reduce or eliminate those impacts pursued". And (20) notes: "Development plan policies should take account of environmental issues such as: Mitigation of the effects of, and adaptation to, climate change through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the use of renewable energy"

Any new building constitutes a significant impact on the environment as it will lead to more emissions unless it is genuinely a zero-carbon building, so according to the above it would be perfectly justifiable to require a percentage of energy generation from renewables. If you prevent councils from doing this, you will be taking a step backwards. You will also be discouraging people such as myself from taking part in politics, if we cannot actually have an effect at local level.

Furthermore, climate change is not the only pressing reason for encouraging local, renewable energy generation. "Peak Oil" will soon be upon us, with the resultant price rises. Our gas and oil supplies increasingly depend on unstable or undependable sources abroad. And disruption caused by climate change or other reasons will be less severe if energy generation is local - a recent example of the threat was seen in the flooding in Gloucestershire.

Please, please reconsider and allow local planning authorities the freedom to be trailblazers in the establishment of renewable energy generation on buildings.

Yours sincerely, Cllr Philip Booth

It was good to hear the Lib Dems declare support for a zero-carbon Britain by 2050, as this has usefully raised the stakes in the other parties’ policy poker of outbidding each other over climate change targets. Here's what Green MEP Dr Caroline Lucas had to say:

"While I'm delighted that both Tories and Lib Dems have decided to make climate change a key policy battle-ground in the next election, I remain a little under-whelmed at their proposals and lack of commitment to the issue. While the Lib Dems have opted for unrealistic optimism over the reality of experience, calling for a zero-carbon Britain by 2050 when their record in power at all levels is one of supporting both airport expansion and more road-building, the Tories have already insisted any leaked proposals from them ‘do not represent party policy’. The truth is that we can’t cut emissions sufficiently by tinkering around the edges of society. We will only reach a zero carbon society – as we must if we are to avert the worst impacts of climate change – by changing the very ways we do business, live our lives and measure progress: now that would be a truly radical proposition. As long as the other parties remain committed to economic growth at all costs and ever-freer international trade, this necessary radicalism seems far from their thinking, whatever their leaders are saying this week. Only the Green Party recognises that if policies to address climate change require a different economic paradigm, then that's to be welcomed, since the kind of materialism that is currently driven by contemporary consumer capitalism is leaving people unfulfilled as well as destroying the planet. Far from being a sacrifice, a zero- carbon society will be a healthier, happier, society, with warmer homes, better public transport, stronger local communities, more green jobs – and more free time. Put simply, the policies we need to live good lives are precisely the policies we need to tackle climate change - and that is what we need to articulate if we are to have any chance of achieving a zero-carbon Britain."