Questionnaire.doc doesn't load when I click it

I once asked our planning officer if I was more likely to get Planning Permission for a highly sustainable design. They said NO because ALL new buildings are considered sustainable - they don't give PP for unsustainable development.

So...

Contradictions between separate regulations, codes and assessment methods. = A

The prescriptive style of regulations, codes and assessment methods (most notably code for sustainable homes). = B

The stage of the design process at which buildings are first assessed (as a result of the way regulations, codes and assessment methods operate). = A

A lack of understanding of sustainable design and technologies at higher levels. =A

Statutory minimum standards not being exceeded (a lack of incentive). = A

Non-statutory assessment methods. = A

Confusion over a large number of regulations, codes and assessment methods. = B

Tendency to ‘Green wash’ buildings to meet regulations, codes and assessment methods. = A

The ability/tendency to compensate poor performance in certain areas with increased performance in others to achieve targets. = A


I would also add that a lack of regulation of build quality is also an issue. For example how well insulation is fitted is as important as how much is fitted.

Posted By: CWattersI once asked our planning officer if I was more likely to get Planning Permission for a highly sustainable design. They said NO because ALL new buildings are considered sustainable

Where was this planning officer from?

There are exceedingly few real or proper sustainable new buildings so clearly there are massive problems.

If it's water and energy, then probably you need to consider if your definition of a "sustainable" home fits well with what policy makers think a "sustainable" home is: Less than 50% of the CSH design allocation is to these points.

As bdp says, policy is to restrict the availability of land on which to build meaning that "sustainable" homes can only be built using a high density philosophy (best single use of land rather than best usage of land). This is related to the older guidance issued by the ODPM prior to the development of more current Government thinking on "sustainability" such as the Energy Bill and the Climate Change Bill.

Because no-one can agree what "sustainability" means, there are a whole range of different competing interests vying to redefine the word. This leads to a lot of confusion on the part of developers and planning officers.

CWatter's list is about right

I would add

1: No real definition of what "sustainability" is leading to confusion
2: No real understanding at a local political level of what the government is trying to do
3: The prohibitive cost of doing what the Government wants (which reduces the rate of replacement of existing stock and thus may well prove to contribute more to global warming than if the Code did not exist)
4: At some level, the realisation in upper levels that the whole of the Code for Sustainable homes is, to an extent, "greenwash" in that it's not relatively important to produce "sustainable" buildings compared to the problem of pre-1945 housing stock (relative to your definition of "sustainability")

Then there's the problem of regulation itself: There is a belief amongst some politicians that "sustainable" development can be steered and controlled by regulation. If a clear understanding of what they want to steer (the why) and of the potential technologies to do it (the how), this might have been a good idea. But there's little evidence that this is the case.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm not sure I would have chosen such a difficult topic for a dissertation by the way. Just my opinion!