Planning policy, climate change

[Nemesis]

From the latest Heritage Link:

Planning Policy and Climate Change: supplement to PPS1: consultation to 17th March

Planning Minister Yvette Cooper says this PPS is central to the entire series of planning policy statements. It confirms the central role of planning in helping achieve zero carbon homes from 2016 and should be fully reflected by regional planning bodies in the preparation of Regional Spatial Strategies, by the Mayor of London and by planning authorities in the preparation of Local Development Documents. Applicants and planning authorities should bear in mind that the policies in the PPS are capable of being material to decisions on planning applications. A companion guide provides practice guidance and support.

Consultation questions cover whether the right balance is struck between economic, social and environmental considerations, how to tackle the requirement for supporting data and whether it addresses the needs for rural areas. Responses and any questions about the consultation should be directed by 17th March to Alison Davis, Communities and Local Government, Planning Economic & Social Policy Division, Zone 1/J3 Eland House, Bressenden Place, LONDON, SW1E 5DU. Telephone: 020 7944 3992 Fax: 020 7944 3949 or by e-mail to economicdevelopment@communities.gov.uk

Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 can be downloaded from http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/consultationeconomicdevelopment

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/614742

 

[biffvernon]

It seems to me all basic common sense, very broad-brush stroke stuff but mostly uncontentious. Ne c'est pas?

 

[Nemesis]

CLIMATE CHANGE AND PLANING
“Climate change represents a potentially catastrophic threat, but it is within our
control to address it – and address it we must.”2
1. There is a compelling scientific consensus that human activity is changing the world’s
climate. The evidence that climate change is happening, and that man-made emissions are
its main cause, is strong and indisputable. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change3 highlights that we are already experiencing the effects of climate change and if
these changes deepen and intensify, as they will without the right responses locally and
globally, we will see even more extreme impacts.
2. In the UK, we are likely to see more extreme weather events, including hotter and drier
summers, flooding and rising sea-levels increasing the risk of coastal erosion. There will be
permanent changes in the natural environment but also, and increasingly, substantial
challenges to national prosperity and social cohesion. Globally, it is quite likely that the
impacts of climate change will be felt first, and disproportionately so, by the most
vulnerable in society.
3. The Government believes that climate change is the greatest long-term challenge facing the
world today. Addressing climate change is therefore the Government’s principal concern for
sustainable development. Policies and priorities for action, both in the UK and
internationally, are set out in the Climate Change Programme4 and the 2007 Energy White
Paper5.

Well,I do seem to think we have several people posting here in the not so far past who haven't got their heads around that, so maybe they will write to HM Gov and say so?

 

[biffvernon]

but it is within our control to address it

That bit may turn out to be wishfull thinking, but at least we might say we tried.

 

[Nemesis]

I can see problems with this one though:

In particular, planning authorities should:
– not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate either the overall need
for renewable energy and its distribution, nor question the energy justification for why a
proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location19;
– ensure any local approach to protecting landscape and townscape is consistent with
PPS22 and does not preclude the supply of any type of renewable energy other than in
the most exceptional circumstances20;

And I note

32. When proposing any local requirement for sustainable buildings planning authorities should:


not require local approaches for a building’s environmental performance on matters
relating to construction techniques, building fabrics, products, fittings or finishes, or for
measuring a building’s performance unless for reasons of landscape or townscape.

 

[biffvernon]

Yes that's the big one that has got a lot of attention. It means that if you want to build a nuclear power station, airport or anything else, at a particular site, you don't have to go through the case for nuclear power etc if, in general, the case has already been accepted. This is the measure which will speed up the planning process.

 

[Nemesis]

Yes, but it also removes a raft of protection regarding democratic process.

(Interesting to note that at the Smithfield Inquiry Mr McCracken. EH's QC, has made a great deal of play about the environmental claims for the ghastly new build Thornfield proposes. He reckons it's all baloney and greenwash, and won't happen. He reckons it's not the first time...)

 

[Nemesis]

From Heritage Link again:

ASCHB Annual AGM and Conference: Building Conservation and Climate Change, 6th February

Following an AGM for members of ASCHB at 9.30am, a conference to discuss historical climatic reconstructions will run from 10.30-17.00. Facts, trends, probabilities and myths surrounding climate change will be unpacked by considering a much longer period than those currently used, aiming towards a prediction of real threats to the historic environment and buildings, reviews of relevant experience and strategies to mitigate the principal areas of concern. Speakers include Dr Rob Allan (Hadley Centre, Meteorological Office), Graham King (Westminster City Council), Carlota Grossi (UEA - Noah's Ark Project) and Chris Wood (English Heritage).

Venue: The Art Workers' Guild, London. Conference fee (including lunch): £70.00 for ASCHB members and students, £80.00 for non-members. For more information contact John Adams on 020 7720 4764 or mandjadams@btopenworld.com

 

[Flyfisher]

I can see problems with this one though:

In particular, planning authorities should:
– not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate either the overall need
for renewable energy and its distribution, nor question the energy justification for why a
proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location;

Indeed. Will this mean I can install solar water heating tubes on my GII* roof? After all, it won't damage the fabric of the property, will be clearly a C21 addition, will significantly reduce my fossil fuel consumption and therefore help to fight man-made global warming.

 

[Nemesis]

I suspect not without applying for LBC. Yoiu may have to justify this, as with all alterations and additions. And then PPG15 will come into play.

These things are taken on a case by case basis of course.

 

[Flyfisher]

I suspect not as well, which I find a little perverse given that . . .

3. The Government believes that climate change is the greatest long-term challenge facing the
world today.

 

[Nemesis]

It also believes that historic buildings are a finite resource and there are very few of them, especially at Grades I and II*, so maybe they should be making exceptions, and owners should be looking at treating them with sensitivity.

There may be other less damaging and intrusive means of saving the planet.

 

[Flyfisher]

There may be other less damaging and intrusive means of saving the planet.

Yes, there may be. And I imagine that every other minority interest group on the planet is making the same representations to government regarding their own pet exceptions, tying its hands with discussion, debate, research, conferences, delays, more research, more debate . . . etc etc.

Again:

The Government believes that climate change is the greatest long-term challenge facing the
world today

I read 'greatest' as meaning more important than anything else. We can't have it all ways and it's a high-stakes gamble to try.

 

[Nemesis]

Well, you'll have to argue it out with your local authority then, won't you?

If you consider it will make a major contribution to saving the planet rather than anything else you could think of.

 

[Flyfisher]

Why am I limited to just one thing. Surely anything and everything that reduces carbon footprint is a good thing, or are you suggesting that certain things not be allowed before other measures have been implemented? That sounds like the 'it's not worth doing anything because of China's massive carbon footprint' argument.

 

[Nemesis]

I'm not suggesting anything.

It's really not worth wasting thirty seconds of my time on worrying about it.

If you want to apply for LBC, do it.

I'm pleased to see China is about to ban placcy shopping bags.

 

[Flyfisher]

I was interested in your opinion, as someone active in this field, because it doesn't seem possible, to me, to have one's cake and eat it. Sorry if you think it's a waste of time.

 

[Nemesis]

Now that would be a first!

Usually you are only interested in nitpicking and arguing. So I tend not to bother. Energy conservation.

Am I active in this field?

I am interested, not sure how active that makes me.

 

[Flyfisher]

Usually you are only interested in nitpicking and arguing.

Not so - that's your interpretation.

So I tend not to bother.

41+ minutes on this says you do.

Am I active in this field?

I am interested, not sure how active that makes me.

Semantics.

 

[Nemesis]

I rest my case.

And I am busy with something rather more important than your willie waving. :wink:

Night.

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=14028