House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2003 - 04
Publications on the internet
Standing Committee Debates
Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill

Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill

Column Number: 36

Standing Committee C

Tuesday 9 March 2004

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill

Clause 7

Energy requirements of buildings

9.30 am

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): I thank all those colleagues who have been able to join us again this morning. We made good progress last week and I hope that we can quickly come to a conclusion today with equal success, although judging from the smile on the Minister's face, I suspect that that may not be quite the case.

The clause clarifies that it is lawful for development plans drawn up by local planning authorities to specify the provision of energy from renewable sources in their developments. The London borough of Merton set a precedent with the policy adopted in its plan, which was based on the expectation that all non-residential developments of more than 1,000 sq m should include renewable energy production to provide 10 per cent. of energy requirements in a new building, where viable. There is now a list of a further 24 authorities undertaking a similar process. The clause is designed to prevent those 24 and others that follow them from facing the difficulties, hassle and uncertainty that Merton faced.

My point is in no way partisan. The Labour party controls the London borough of Merton, and the other 24 authorities are a good mixture by type, geographical location and political control. Perhaps the Committee will understand if I draw attention to the fact that one of the first authorities in the queue to follow Merton is the London borough of Bromley, and one of its Members of Parliament spoke on Second Reading. The clause would directly facilitate local authorities represented in the House by a wide range of Members with a considerable variety of outlooks, so I hope that nobody will accuse of riding a partisan hobby-horse.

The Minister has sent me a letter, which I have placed on the Table and which is available to other members of the Committee. I understand that he intends to speak to that letter. I seek some stronger and further assurances from the Minister. It is important that those authorities now in the process and those that may follow them should be given not only a no hassle guarantee, but some encouragement that following Merton is a good thing to do. The Minister's officials—not those concerned with building controls, but those from elsewhere in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—made it difficult for Merton to achieve what is now being achieved. At several steps along the way, officials from the Department told the borough in plain words, ''If you dropped this, it would a lot easier for everybody.''

Column Number: 37

One, perhaps fortunate, consequence was that Merton girded its loins, did the business anyway and challenged the ODPM to put up or shut up. Due to either mature consideration or perhaps embarrassment, the Department shut up. Merton now has the relevant provisions in its draft plan, unamended by the Department. News of the likelihood of hassle and conflict with the ODPM, spread through the powerful network of local government communication, has put off many local authorities. Goodness knows, there are enough problems between central and local government already, without stirring things up. It is a significant disincentive if the word on the net is, ''Folks, it would be much better if you didn't do this''. I hope that the Minister agrees, as I think his letter sets out, that the question should not be whether authorities can squeeze such plans through, but whether they should be positively encouraged to do so. I want a no hassle guarantee.

One qualification in the Minister's letter relates to ensuring that there are no undue burdens on business. I certainly agree about that. It is like asking whether the provisions should be reasonable: of course they should be reasonable, and of course there should not be undue burdens. The Green Alliance, among others, has set out mechanisms that might be a reasonable test of whether there are undue burdens, taking into account land prices, for instance. Merton managed to satisfy that test, and it would be helpful if the Minister said that the ODPM was minded not to be unduly restrictive in its interpretation of an undue burden.

The Minister's letter sets quite a lot of store by the idea that we should wait for planning policy statement 22, which will come in the summer. On another occasion, I had some fun at the Government's expense with the civil service definition of ''spring''. On that occasion, spring ended on 31 July. If spring ends on 31 July, I want to know when summer starts and ends. Please may we not be left for month after month with uncertainty hanging about? In such circumstances, local authorities, which have other timetables to meet with regard to plan setting, will say, ''Oh—''. I will not use the non-parliamentary word that sprang to mind. An authority will say, ''Well, skip it. We'll go ahead and leave out the provision,'' and for another 10 years, that authority will lose the opportunity that is there.

I want to know what the timing is, and I want to know that the Minister will provide encouragement. I hope that he will also pick up some of the strong points made in the Green Alliance consultation, which was held in January and attended by officials from the ODPM and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It was pointed out that there is tremendous advantage to sustainability if we allow the concept to include combined heat and power. I hope that, as well as speaking to the letter, the Minister will say that his Department is now minded to ensure that the Thames Gateway project, for instance, will have a significant slice of zero-energy housing. The Government are the landlord and planning authority, and, with the ODPM, the approver of

Column Number: 38

plans, and it should be simple for such a straightforward step to be taken.

I hope that I have made it clear that if the Government give me the assurance that I want, the clause will not be necessary. In that case, it will be on the record, available to any planning officer in the country, that a Minister speaking on behalf of the ODPM said that sustainability is a right and proper thing to include in local plans; that the Government want to encourage local authorities to do so, and that they will do nothing to put barriers in the way of authorities doing that if they so choose. If the Minister can give that assurance, I will be content.

Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East) (Lab): The Minister has gone some way towards alleviating my fears by clarifying, in his letter, the legal doubt, but one of my concerns is that the requirement in the letter to stick closely to the wording in the Merton plan may be unduly restrictive. I want to ask some questions, because we are in danger of missing another opportunity and having to return in two or three years' time to ask why we did not use it. The Government would be in difficulty because they had not used the opportunity. The Minister should reflect on the danger that removing the clause will mean another missed opportunity.

The Government will, through the sustainable communities plan, be doing an awful lot of work on housing development in the next few years. The Minister will know, representing a constituency in the same sub-region as mine, about the Milton Keynes and south midlands study. Shortly there will be an examination in public. Are the inspectors and regional planning guidance authorities being advised that taking into account the energy requirements of the new buildings is a valid way forward?

It is important, particularly in light of the number of local plans that are undergoing examination at the moment, and the examination in public of regional plans, that a message should come from the ODPM, to the inquiries and the people who are doing the work, that it is not only permissible but desirable to deal with the energy requirements. It is particularly important that that message should go to inspectors, because they sometimes take time to catch up with advances in Government policy.

Including the requirement in local plans is probably the cheapest way for the Government to achieve their objectives on fuel poverty, energy efficiency and matters such as the CHP target. All those could be achieved much more easily through the mechanism of local plans than by the interventionist model and going to the Treasury for money. The Government are in danger of costing themselves money later by not taking the present opportunity. Recently, in another Department, the head of a section who was talking about CHP did not know that it was a manifesto commitment, or that it was in the energy White Paper, and even asked, ''What is CHP going to do for energy efficiency?'' When that kind of comment is made by a civil servant, it makes for an ambience that affects people further down the line.

Column Number: 39

I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) about the message that is going to local authorities. If local planners do not believe that something is a key requirement, they will not do it. It is important that the Minister not only states, in his letter, that the matter will be in PPS 22, but explains that the Government want to make progress with it.

We know that the approach works. In development corporations that have used it—and I cite Milton Keynes development corporation, which had its own energy rating system—it advanced tremendously the cause of energy efficiency in building new houses. The requirement in the local plan was very simple; there would be certain energy requirements. If that could happen in Milton Keynes 30 years ago, why can it not happen now? Local authorities should be encouraged to take that route.

The Minister's letter uses the words ''no undue burden'', but something else is important—a level playing field. What builders fear most, and a reason why things do not happen, is that those who want to do the right thing fear being undercut by the unscrupulous. The requirement that there be ''no undue burden'' is actually the Minister saying, ''We will go to the lowest level.'' That is what happens in reality. I ask the Minister to reflect on that, and to make it clear that the idea that there should be ''no undue burden'' is intended to mean not going to the lowest level, but aiming for the highest.

 
Continue

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 9 March 2004