Policy NB6: Sustainable construction

Support

Representation ID: 4142

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Group

We welcome this policy and its requirement for zero carbon and for proven reduction in energy use. However we believe that offsetting should be avoided. If essential, we suggest it should be in the form of providing equivalent renewable energy. Treeplanting does not help our transition, and is not particularly effective unless it takes land out of arable, which then reduces food security.

Object

Representation ID: 4181

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Miller Homes

Agent: PlanIt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

No evidence that the cost implications of the net zero policy, and its impact on viability, have been assessed. We consider that this policy is unnecessary and that the proper framework for delivering carbon reduction is through the Building Regulations legislative framework. There is no justification for the Council to accelerate the requirement for net zero through a planning policy.

It is noted that policy NB6 requires a 10% improvement to the Part L 2021 Target for Fabric Energy Efficiency. However, that benchmark standard is already out of date and is replaced by the introduction of the 2022 changes to the Part L Building Regulations; those changes achieve the 10 % improvement which is referenced in policy NB6. This policy should be removed from the Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4253

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: Miss Natasha Styles

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Currently it appears that the council is going to achieve net zero through having mandatory standards from adoption of the plan that go beyond government targets. However, it is our view that any requirement should be ‘stepped’ in line with Government targets. This is more desirable as there is considerable momentum from Government in preparing enhanced sustainability standards as it is clear the energy efficiency requirements for domestic and non-domestic buildings will increase sharply in the coming years. Aligning the Council’s requirement for carbon neutral development with those of Government would therefore be pragmatic and more achievable.

Object

Representation ID: 4278

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Hampton Oak Developments

Agent: PlanIt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

No evidence that the cost implications of the net zero policy, and its impact on viability, have been assessed. We consider that this policy is unnecessary and that the proper framework for delivering carbon reduction is through the Building Regulations legislative framework. There is no justification for the Council to accelerate the requirement for net zero through a planning policy.
It is noted that policy NB6 requires a 10% improvement to the Part L 2021 Target for Fabric Energy Efficiency. However, that benchmark standard is already out of date and is replaced by the introduction of the 2022 changes to the Part L Building Regulations; those changes achieve the 10 % improvement which is referenced in policy NB6. This policy should be removed from the Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4411

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

A locally specific CO2 reduction requirement is unnecessary and without justification for deviation from Government emerging Future Homes standards to be considered through building regulations
See supporting representations for further details.

Object

Representation ID: 4495

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

A locally specific CO2 reduction requirement is unnecessary and without justification for deviation from Government emerging Future Homes standards to be considered through building regulations
See supporting representations for further details.

Object

Representation ID: 4525

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

A locally specific CO2 reduction requirement is unnecessary and without justification for deviation from Government emerging Future Homes standards to be considered through building regulations.

Object

Representation ID: 4551

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

A locally specific CO2 reduction requirement is unnecessary and without justification for deviation from Government emerging Future Homes standards to be considered through building regulations

Object

Representation ID: 4576

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

A locally specific CO2 reduction requirement is unnecessary and without justification for deviation from Government emerging Future Homes standards to be considered through building regulations
See supporting representations for further details.

Object

Representation ID: 4608

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Four Ashes Road LTD

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

A locally specific CO2 reduction requirement is unnecessary and without justification for deviation from Government emerging Future Homes standards to be considered through building regulations

Object

Representation ID: 4646

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: CWC Group - Clowes Developments

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Object to the policy NB6, because it is not in accordance with national policy,or justified. This Policy states that major developments must achieve a minimum 63%
reduction in carbon emissions for each dwelling by on-site measures compared to UK Building Regulations through fabric and energy efficiency measures as well as on-site renewable energy regeneration. These requirements are considered to be over and
above the requirements of PPG which states that Local Plans “can set energy performance standards for new housing or the adaptation of buildings to provide
dwellings, that are higher than the building regulations, but only up to the equivalent of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes” (Reference ID: 6-012- 20190315).

The Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy Topic Paper (November 2022) makes assumptions on whether standards above the Part L Building regulations can been used and reference is made to other local authorities who have adopted policies above Level 4 standards (although the names of the authorities have not been quoted). plans are examined on a case by case basis. Therefore, other plans may have been found sound with policies requiring energy performance above the Part L standards but this should not mean that every local plan can proposed requirements which are contrary to national guidance.

The Viability Study 2022 has assumed a +7% increase on build costs for houses and +4% build cost for flats to meet these targets. Given Policy NB6 is proposing requirements much greater than existing regulations,
further clarity is sought on the assumptions made in the Viability Study and where the costs have been taken from.

Object

Representation ID: 4664

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Keon Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

A locally specific CO2 reduction requirement is unnecessary and without justification for deviation from Government emerging Future Homes standards to be considered through building regulations
See supporting representations for further details.

Object

Representation ID: 4690

Received: 12/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Mark Stephens

Agent: Advance Land & Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to the unjustified and onerous requirement at paragraph 1 for net zero regulated carbon emissions. There is not a clear and compelling evidence base to require carbon reduction measures introduced over and above the Building Regulations Part L and Future Homes Standard (2025).

Object

Representation ID: 4704

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Lovell Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

A locally specific CO2 reduction requirement is unnecessary and without justification for deviation from Government emerging Future Homes standards to be considered through building regulations

Comment

Representation ID: 4740

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Environment Agency

We welcome the requirement to limit water usage to 110 litres per head per day. In July 2021 Defra announced that South Staffs Water and Severn Trent Water’s supply regions are now considered to be in “serious water stress”. We agree with the recommendation in section 4.9 of the WCS for standards of water efficiency of 110 litres per head per day, which is reflected within Policy NB6. It should be highlighted however, that this requirement is a minimum only and developments that choose to go beyond this should be supported by the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4755

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Harding

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Council’s proposed policy approach to net zero regulated carbon is unnecessary and repetitious of 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and the Future Homes Standard. Standardisation is key for economies of scale and the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and proposals for the 2025 Future Homes Standard render this unnecessary. The Salt Cross DPD indicates this different between national and local requirement has been held to be unsound.

If the Council wishes to adopt the optional standard for water efficiency of 110 litres per person per day, then the Council should justify doing so by applying the criteria set out in the PPG. The Housing Standards Review was explicit that reduced water consumption was solely applicable to water stressed areas.

Policy requirements for Whole Lifecycle Carbon Assessments and 10% post occupancy monitoring do not serve a clear purpose and it is not evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals. It is not clear from the policy how it will be determined what is an appropriate level of emissions or what would be an appropriate level of reductions. It is not clear what the Council would do with the information in relation to performance information or the monitoring information once the development is completed and is a home. The HBF also considers that it is unlikely that any household would wish to share their personal energy usage information with the developer of the site or the Council. The HBF recommends this policy is deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 4808

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This policy is considered unnecessary given it seeks to go further than current Building Regulations and given the Future Homes Standard which is due to be implemented in 2025. Building regulations require all new dwellings to achieve a mandatory level of water efficiency of 125 litres per day per person, which is a higher standard than that achieved by the existing housing stock. This mandatory standard represents an effective demand management measure and no robust and proportionate evidence has been provided to justify the Optional Technical Housing Standard.

Object

Representation ID: 4834

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The council's ambition to set its own standards are inconsistent with and go beyond Part L Building Regs. (2021) and Future Homes Standards. There is no justification for doing so.

It is unclear how Part 3 of the policy would be applied by the decision maker (i.e. what is an acceptable level of emodied carbon reduction?). There is no legal or policy basis for this.

Paragraph 2 of Part 3 of the policy is unduly onerous and unpracticable, particularly on schemes that deliver owner-occupied accommodation.

This policy should be deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 4847

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The requirements for carbon emission reductions in Part 1 of NB6, go beyond the Government’s Future Homes Standard roadmap that most developers are working to and on which they have based their future plans.

The approach, based on the Future Homes target roadmap, takes a more gradual approach which is
the right approach.There are a number of reasons why building ahead of the Future Homes Standard now may not actually be the best solution. Principally, because of the potentially detrimental local impact on delivery through a lack of sufficiently skilled labour available to implement these new technologies at scale.

Regarding Part (b), in principle additional onsite renewable energy should be provided to assist in
meeting net zero regulated energy targets. However, South Staffordshire should to be flexible in the
application of this policy to take account of site-specific constraints which may constrain the onsite
provision of, or offsite connection to, renewable/low carbon energy generation.

Whilst in principle we do not object to a Whole Life Carbon Assessment (WLCA) there are issues surrounding data collection to be able to undertake a proper WLCA. Principally, many manufacturers are still lacking the creation and verification of data for
Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). Though there are UK based EPDs, these are often generic values which will not accurately reflect a completed property, so it is important that South Staffordshire allow some tolerance when assessing any submitted WLCA.

If a WLCA is to be submitted, then it should be required as part of the planning conditions attached to a grant of detailed planning permission as it would prove difficult for applicants to submit a robust WLCA based on
Outline application parameters.

Regarding the requirement for a as built performance assessment, South Staffordshire should reconsider the requirement for immediate implementation of built assessments in the Local Plan and instead consider rolling out this requirement at a later date, once the Government undertake further national scale research projects into their implementation. If the policy is carried through to EiP stage, South Staffordshire will need to adequately demonstrate as part of their evidence base that the current as built assessment sector will be able to meet the resultant demand should all allocations in the Local Plan come forward for delivery on expected timescales.

Support

Representation ID: 4848

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Support the requirement for all developments
to demonstrate a water efficiency standard of 110 litres/person/day.

Comment

Representation ID: 4894

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Bellway Homes Ltd

Agent: Turley

The proposed policy approach represents repetition of the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and the Future Homes Standard. It is the Government’s intention to set standards for energy efficiency through the Building Regulations. The higher levels of energy efficiency standards for new homes set out in the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and proposals for the 2025 Future Homes Standard negate any need for local energy efficiency standards to achieve the shared net zero goal because of the higher levels of energy efficiency standards for new homes set out in the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and
proposals for the 2025 Future Homes Standard.

The Optional Technical Housing Standard is 110 litres per day per person. The higher standard proposed within the draft policy has not been justified in accordance with the standard required by the NPPF. If the Council wishes to adopt the optional standard for water efficiency of 110 litres per person per day, it should justify doing so by applying the criteria set out in the PPG.
Given the above the policy does not serve a clear purpose. Whilst the policy will require the calculation of the whole life cycle carbon emissions and actions to reduce life cycle carbon emissions, it is not clear how determination will be made as to what is an appropriate level of emissions or reductions. There are also concerns in relation to the elements of the policy regarding performance and monitoring. It is not clear what
the Council would do with the information in relation to performance information or the monitoring information once the development is completed.
For the above reasons the policy is not considered to be justified and should be deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 4931

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Gladman

Agent: Gladman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy requirement for regulated net zero is an unnecessary repetition of 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and the Future Homes Standard. It is the Government’s intention to set standards for energy efficiency through the Building Regulations. The key to decarbonising Staffordshire’s energy demand is to recognise the need to move towards greater energy efficiency via a nationally consistent set of standards and timetable, which is universally understood and technically implementable. Therefore, the Council does not need to set local energy efficiency standards to achieve the shared net zero goal.

The policy requirements around sustainable construction should also be left to building regulations and should not require a betterment above the requirements in the latest Building Regulations.

Should the Council seek to continue with Policy NB6 in its current form, Gladman also hold several significant concerns in respect of the third element of the policy which states that all major development must demonstrate how the embodied carbon of the proposed materials to be used in the development has been considered and reduced where possible.

the policy fails to differentiate between the levels of detail required between Full, Outline and Reserved Matter applications which could seriously undermine the overarching aims.

relation to the performance and monitoring aspect of the third element of the policy, it is not clear what the Council would do with the information in relation to performance information or the monitoring information once the development is completed.

Gladman do not consider it is likely that any household would wish to share their personal energy usage information with the developer of the site or the Council. The requirements are exceptionally excessive and would appear to intrude into people’s privacy.

Comment

Representation ID: 4933

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Bellway Homes Ltd

Agent: Turley

The proposed policy approach represents repetition of the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and the Future Homes Standard. It is the Government’s intention to set standards for energy efficiency through the Building Regulations. The higher levels of energy efficiency standards for new homes set out in the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and proposals for the 2025 Future Homes Standard negate any need for local energy efficiency standards to achieve the shared net zero goal because of the higher levels of energy efficiency standards for new homes set out in the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and
proposals for the 2025 Future Homes Standard.

The Building Regulations require all new
dwellings to achieve a mandatory level of water efficiency of 125 litres per day per person, which is a higher standard than that achieved by much of the existing housing stock. This mandatory standard represents an effective demand management measure. The Optional Technical Housing Standard is 110 litres per day per person. The higher standard proposed within the draft policy has not been justified in accordance with the standard required by the NPPF. If the Council wishes to adopt the optional standard for water efficiency of 110 litres per person per day, it should justify doing so by applying the criteria set out in the PPG.

Given the above the policy does not serve a clear purpose. Whilst the policy will require the calculation of the whole life cycle carbon emissions and actions to reduce life cycle carbon emissions, it is not clear how determination will be made as to what is an appropriate level of emissions or reductions. There are also concerns in relation to the elements of the policy regarding performance and monitoring. It is not clear what
the Council would do with the information in relation to performance information or the monitoring information once the development is completed.
For the above reasons the policy is not considered to be justified and should be deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 4972

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This policy states that major developments must achieve a minimum 63% reduction in carbon emissions for each dwelling by on-site measures compared to UK Building Regulations through fabric and energy efficiency measures as well as on-site renewable energy regeneration. These requirements are considered to be over and above the requirements of PPG which states that Local Plans “can set energy performance standards for new housing or the adaptation of buildings to provide dwellings, that are higher than the building regulations, but only up to the equivalent of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes” (Reference ID: 6-012- 20190315).
The Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy Topic Paper (November 2022) states that the requirement to not exceed Level 4 standards is not set out in the NPPF (paragraph 7.3). The Topic Paper (paragraph 7.3) goes on to make assumptions on whether standards above the Part L Building Regulations can been used and reference is made to other local authorities who have adopted policies above level 4 standards (although the names of the authorities have not been quoted). Barratt does not agree with the assumptions made by SSDC within the Topic Paper. Firstly, although the Level 4 standards may not be specifically quoted within the NPPF, in order to be “consistent with national policy” and sound, plans are required to accord with the NPPF and “other statements of national planning policy” (NPPF paragraph 35d). The PPGs is national guidance and therefore the inclusion of Reference ID: 6-012-20190315, is relevant. Secondly, plans are examined on a case by case basis. Therefore, other plans may have been found sound with policies requiring energy performance above the Part L standards but this should not mean that every local plan can propose requirements which are contrary to national guidance.
The PPG also states that if a Council is “considering policies on local requirements for the sustainability of other buildings, local planning authorities will wish to consider if there are nationally described standards and the impact on viability of development” (Reference ID: 6- 009-20150327). The Viability Study 2022 has assumed a +7% increase on build costs for houses and +4% build cost for flats to meet these targets. Given Policy NB6 is proposing requirements much greater than existing regulations, further clarity is sought on the assumptions made in the Viability Study and where the costs have been taken from. As presented we consider the evidence to be unjustified and inconsistent with national guidance.

Object

Representation ID: 4994

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This policy states that major developments must achieve a minimum 63% reduction in carbon emissions for each dwelling by on-site measures compared to UK Building Regulations through fabric and energy efficiency measures as well as on-site renewable energy regeneration. These requirements are considered to be over and above the requirements of PPG which states that Local Plans “can set energy performance standards for new housing or the adaptation of buildings to provide dwellings, that are higher than the building regulations, but only up to the equivalent of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes” (Reference ID: 6-012- 20190315).
The Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy Topic Paper (November 2022) states that the requirement to not exceed Level 4 standards is not set out in the NPPF (paragraph 7.3). The Topic Paper (paragraph 7.3) goes on to make assumptions on whether standards above the Part L Building Regulations can been used and reference is made to other local authorities who have adopted policies above level 4 standards (although the names of the authorities have not been quoted). Barratt does not agree with the assumptions made by SSDC within the Topic Paper. Firstly, although the Level 4 standards may not be specifically quoted within the NPPF, in order to be “consistent with national policy” and sound, plans are required to accord with the NPPF and “other statements of national planning policy” (NPPF paragraph 35d). The PPGs is national guidance and therefore the inclusion of Reference ID: 6-012-20190315, is relevant. Secondly, plans are examined on a case by case basis. Therefore, other plans may have been found sound with policies requiring energy performance above the Part L standards but this should not mean that every local plan can propose requirements which are contrary to national guidance.
The PPG also states that if a Council is “considering policies on local requirements for the sustainability of other buildings, local planning authorities will wish to consider if there are nationally described standards and the impact on viability of development” (Reference ID: 6- 009-20150327). The Viability Study 2022 has assumed a +7% increase on build costs for houses and +4% build cost for flats to meet these targets. Given Policy NB6 is proposing requirements much greater than existing regulations, further clarity is sought on the assumptions made in the Viability Study and where the costs have been taken from. As presented we consider the evidence to be unjustified and inconsistent with national guidance.

Object

Representation ID: 5003

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

St Philips notes that the Building regulations (Part L) have recently been amended to require that new homes will need a 31% reduction in CO2 in comparison to preceding standards. Policy NB6 sets out standards above those required at a national level.
The Council’s proposed strategy aims to seek carbon reduction standards above those introduced by the Government in June 2022. St Philips does not accept the proposed direction of travel within draft Policy NB6 as there is no evidence to support the departure from the latest changes to the building regulations (Part L).
Following a review of the 2022 Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy Study (SCRE) submitted in support of the PP, St Philips considers that the 63% reduction in carbon emissions against the 2022 Building Regulations Part L is not justified. The SCRE only refers to legal acts such as the Energy Act 2008 when justifying departure from the 2022 building regulations (Part L) but does not provide supporting evidence to deem this direction of travel as being necessary.
As draft Policy NB6 has not been justified by sufficient evidence, St Philips considers that this policy is not legally compliant with national policy.
In order to make the Local Plan Review legally compliant, St Philips recommends that the more onerous standard proposed should be reduced to reflect the 2022 building regulations (Part L).

Object

Representation ID: 5010

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Taylor Wimpey fully supports emerging policies seeking to tackle climate change with proactive sustainable measures. However, policies must be sufficiently flexible and fit for purpose and factor in the viability appraisal of proposed planning policies.

Until Future Home Standard and the supporting SAP software finalised (Government due to consult 2023) the industry will be unable to confirm it building specification and carbon reduction over Building Regulations 2013 or 2021 when this policy is targeted for adoption or Future Homes Standard becomes legislation in 2025. Therefore the proposed policy should be flexible to allow developers to utilise the most appropriate technology available at that time.
The costs of introducing proposed policy requirements must be included within the Plan viability assessment and viability assessment of strategic sites. This should include the cost of utility network upgrades to support proposed technologies.
The Council’s proposed strategy aims to seek carbon reduction standards above those introduced by the Government in June 2022. Taylor Wimpey does not accept the proposed direction of travel within draft Policy NB6 as there is no evidence to support the departure from the latest changes to the building regulations (Part L).
Taylor Wimpey, where possible, practical and viable, support the use of onsite renewable energy generation and/or connection to near site renewable low carbon energy networks. However, Taylor Wimpey considers that the words ‘possible, practical & viable’ would need to be included within the proposed policy wording.
Importantly, Taylor Wimpey considers that this is far beyond what is being planned in the regulations and will be an unknown on every site and will come at a risk.
Taylor Wimpey recognises the importance of reducing embodied carbon within the development process. However, embodied carbon emissions are unregulated in the UK. Current policy and regulation focus solely on operational energy use, as distinct from embodied carbon. There currently does not exist a nationally approved regulator or national recognised standard, national planning policy or building regulation requirement to assess and report embodied carbon emissions or whole life cycle carbon assessments.
Taylor Wimpey supports responding to climate change and reducing carbon emissions. However, the proposed draft Policy NB6 is ambiguous and ineffective without the supportive national guidance, regulation, regulator and agree monitoring approach and does not have the flexibility to respond to an unknown future government regulation or viability.
Taylor Wimpey therefore considers that this policy is unsound and does not comply with national planning policy and legislation.
Overall, the proposed draft Policy NB6 is ambiguous and ineffective without the supportive national guidance, regulation, regulator and agree monitoring approach and does not have the flexibility to respond to an unknown future government regulation or viability.

Object

Representation ID: 5017

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Taylor Wimpey welcomes the proposed policy to reduce carbon emissions on proposed developments. However, Until Future Home Standard and the supporting SAP software finalised (Government due to consult 2023) the industry will be unable to confirm it building specification and carbon reduction over Building Regulations 2013 or 2021 when this policy is targeted for adoption or Future Homes Standard becomes legislation in 2025. Therefore the proposed policy should be flexible to allow developers to utilise the most appropriate technology available at that time. The Government’s approach “remains technology-neutral and designers will retain the flexibility they need to use the materials and technologies that suit the circumstances of a site and their business”. (MHCLG Summary Response to the FHS (2019 Consultation Changes to Part L and F).
Reference should be made to those matters that are yet to be finalised by Government. The Government’s proposals set out in both part 1 of its Future Home Standards Consultation and the 10 points for a green industrial revolution have set a target for homes to be ‘zero carbon ready’ from 2025 rather than necessarily achieving ‘zero carbon’ from 2025.
The costs of introducing proposed policy requirements must be included within the Plan viability assessment and viability assessment of strategic sites. This should include the cost of utility network upgrades to support proposed technologies. Where a viability assessment is submitted to accompany a planning application, this should be based upon and refer back to the viability assessment that informed the plan, with evidence of what has changed since then.
Following a review of the 2022 Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy Study (SCRE) submitted in support of the PP, Taylor Wimpey considers that the 63% reduction in carbon emissions against the 2022 Building Regulations Part L is not justified. The SCRE only refers to legal acts such as the Energy Act 2008 when justifying departure from the 2022 building regulations (Part L) but does not provide supporting evidence to deem this direction of travel as being necessary. As draft Policy NB6 has not been justified by sufficient evidence, Taylor Wimpey considers that this policy is not legally compliant with national policy. The District’s departure from the national standards could have damaging impacts on the market without the support of evidence, and should therefore aim to achieve a nationally shared net zero goal. Taylor Wimpey recognises the importance of reducing embodied carbon within the development process. However, embodied carbon emissions are unregulated in the UK. Current policy and regulation focus solely on operational energy use, as distinct from embodied carbon. There currently does not exist a nationally approved regulator or national recognised standard, national planning policy or building regulation requirement to assess and report embodied carbon emissions or whole life cycle carbon assessments.
Taylor Wimpey supports responding to climate change and reducing carbon emissions. However, the proposed draft Policy NB6 is ambiguous and ineffective without the supportive national guidance, regulation, regulator and agree monitoring approach and does not have the flexibility to respond to an unknown future government regulation or viability.

Object

Representation ID: 5061

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Goldfinch TPS

Agent: Goldfinch TPS

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The huge economic shift and significant material change in economic circumstances now facing the Local Plan due to the presence of a severe economic recession caused by the pro-longed, unprecedented and severe global coronavirus (covid-19) pandemic, which has resulted in one of the worst global health pandemic events to affect the United Kingdom (UK) within the last 100 years, should now be viewed as a key material planning consideration by the LPA when shaping future policies within the emerging Local Plan Review.
We have concerns that the Council is taking forward policies that may no longer be deliverable in a severe economic recession. The future financial viability of new housing schemes will be a major issue given the adverse economic landscape now facing the local area. Policy NB6 will add significant financial costs to new development proposals coming forward across the district. We also have concerns how these policies can be monitored on site, as not all the issues are covered by Building Control requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 5100

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: St Philips

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

St Philips notes that the Building regulations (Part L) have recently been updated and from 15 June 2022, homes will be required to achieve a 31% reduction in carbon emissions in comparison to previous standards[1]. Through Policy NB6, the Council is seeking to implement standards above what is required by Building Regulations. Following a review of the PP’s evidence base, St Philips considers that the Council has not provided sufficient evidence to justify this departure from national standards and therefore the policy is not legally compliant. This is in conflict with paragraph 31 of the NPPF.