First question is which sustainability policy? Sustainability to a planner generally in the past had very little to do with being green. It's mostly to do with availability of local services, schools etc.

Our planning officer once told me that ALL approved developments were sustainable these days or they wouldn't be approved. As long as the Building Regs allow non-green development that's what will be built.

As far as I can tell, sustainable in an LDF means sustaining a population that actually want to live there and pay council tax. The sustainable bit doesn't look at emissions or resource depletion, but things like having enough shops, schools, houses and roads for the expected (increasing) number of residents. Without wanting to be a xenophobe - it's of interest to note that although birth rate is stable, how come the LDF in my area expect another 8,000 houses in 25 years? Effecitvely growth of 33% from the current size.

My reply to the council consisted of stating they need poilcies to encourage downsizing/rightsizing and trying to make better use of the exsiting housing stock - i.e. instead of building more, make sure the existing houses are fully occupied (and insulated). Personally I think a return to rates is better than council tax. I.e the bigger you house the more you pay. And you shouldn't get a discount for single occupancy. You should move!

That and some additional points like all new office develpments must include a shower and contribute to section 108 agreements (I coudln't believe they didn't already). Which can then be used to improve cycle networks and sports facilities - which out of town employees also use.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: jon</cite>In the forum's opinion, should the counter-attack be revealed prior to submission (allowing forums like this to comment and provide help/advice) or should it be hidden (gives little time for the LA to recover and, IMHO, probably good enough already to force an Inspector's rejection)</blockquote>

Keep it hidden. Though you may want to speak about it generally that you object to something, you might want to hold back your evidence. E.g. I've been helping dad fight a specific planinng application and listed lots of thing like increase drainage requirements meaning the already overstressed river will flood more often. Any more than it does now is likely to encroach on houses. They developer could argue at the inquiry they'd use a soakaway - but the bit we've withheld is they can't as the area is clay and in a basin. So likely to self flood.

Edit - I forgot the key point in our LDF - the proposal to build in the green belt!!! I must have mentioned 3 or 4 timers this is so UNSUSTAINABLE as it doesn't minimse the impact for future generations.

Posted By: jon
I may have given the wrong impression. The residents think the proposed Policy is Nimbyist. The counter-attack in question is not to stop development but to allow 'proper' sustainable projects to come in.

Are you suggesting (for example) that a Passivhaus should be allowed where an ordinary house wouldn't? In which case you need to look at why an ordinary houses would be rejected. Houses are never just rejected because of their C02 emissions.

Edit: It's interesting that even the government is having trouble getting sustainable development built. Last I heard they were talking of allowing offsetting - eg You can build an ordinary house if you offer to insulate a few existing houses.

Jon what do you mean by proper?

I used to think that wind turbines should be allowed in more places. But am starting to change tack. Really I think huge floating offshore sites would be best, with a few onshore sites visibile in more areas just to remind people we have to change.

Likewise - I don't think it's good to build in green belt even if the houses are sustainable. On the other hand if you wanted to re use some existing land and wanted to make sure what was built is ahead of the CSHrequirements - then that's not a bad idea.

Think about it this way... By 2016 all houses will have to be passive/CSH 6. So you could deny planning persmission until then and the house woul dhave to meet the regs. Would that make it any better allowing it to be built where it is proposed now?

The Welsh Assembly has asserted its independence and made it 2013 in Wales, and in Ireland it's 2011!

(BTW, what price any plans at all after 12/12/2012?)

Posted By: jonNo, more to do with provisions for renewable energy

You mean something like mini power station recently built not far from us that burns waste wood? It's quite small really - about the size of an aircraft hanger I guess.

On the OT - does the LDF contain a definition of 'sustainability'? Most councils seem to be left in the 'old world' of Agenda21 as far as their knowledge of sustainability is concerned.

Posted By: tedOn the OT - does the LDF contain a definition of 'sustainability'?

Yes, a quote from Brundtland. Is there a better definition Ted?

Posted By: jon

Posted By: CWatters
You mean something like mini power station recently built not far from us that burns waste wood? It's quite small really - about the size of an aircraft hanger I guess.

Whatever you do there's always someone that will say "not in my back yard" CW.

Well yes. I'm just struggling to understand what your proposed sustainable policy would "allow to come in". I certainly wouldn't want to live next door to one of these smelly monstors but a wind turbine would be another matter.

I know you think your counter attack should stay hidden but give us a clue :-) Can you post a copy with all references to the area/council deleted?

Unfortunately I think it would be meaningless with references deleted CW. Perhaps it'd be worth opening it up later when the impact is known?

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Paul in Montreal</cite>How's that going to be achievable? Current UK building practice is incapable of producing airtight buildings that are anywhere close to the level required for CSH6/passivhaus/R2000 etc.</blockquote>

The only think I can think off is that they are planning to issues all mainstream builders with a large roll of cellophane!

Actaully the mainstream housebuiling industry seems to have been inspired by CSH and most have been trying pilot projects to work out how to do it ahead of time. Porbably as they think it will sell more houses in the current climate. Ok they cost more but you will have minimal ongoing bills so they are more desirable = more valueable. As you say - the main problem seems to be airtightness not insulation. Plus cold bridging round windows, party walls and lintels.

The question is - how to get a prototype built by head office presumably using their best builders, to scale so that all their jobbing sub-contractors can do it too? Performance bonuses? Pre-Site techincal briefing? I'll stop Before I go too far OT.

I realise now you are trying to make sure it's easier to get planning for renewable energy projects. The best way I can see to prevent NIMBYISM is to have the community have a stake in proposed renewable developments. Our community and a few more I'm aware of a starting on the "Community Owned Energy Service Company (ESCo)" route. So the big wind turbine at the end of the lane is nologer being plonked there by some out of town entrepreneur, but a collaboration between local homeowners & businesses, financiers, grants and the council.

It applies the same to heat producing equipment. If you can get people to understand the need (think of the gov's paper last week on energy security) , they'll want it in their street first so their bills don't end up ridicously expensive.

How this fits into an LDF that isn't NIMBYist I'm not sure. I think the main thing is to make sure that new developments can include "contributions to near-site renewable energy development" as part of their renewables allocation. That way - if you have a community energy co, you can get funding from developers to achieve the towns overall energy requirements. Developers are probably happier to work that way too - the builder builds the houses. The ESCo sorts the energy production.

Some things I included in my LDF response were allocating space for renewable energy parks (have a look at NanoSolar's rollout plans) and near-urban biomass production to supplement winter heat loads. Additionally - specifying that all new building had to have at least 25% of the roof south facing to allow future installs of PV or solar thermal. Reserving an area of land on the south of the City (Lichfield) to provide a car sharing / public tranport commuter hub. (60 % of people from Lichfield work in the Birmigham area according to the last census).

Thanks Simon

"think of the gov's paper last week on energy security)"

Can you give a link to this or more detail on the title?

Jon, I think Simon is referring to the OFGEM consultation on security of supplies:

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/WhlMkts/Discovery/Documents1/Discovery_Scenarios_ConDoc_FINAL.pdf

Most recent wind farm developments come with offers of funding from the developers for local community projects that are funded from the farm's revenue stream. Our new local 30MW wind farm is talking of putting £75k a year back into the community. In some circumstances these terms are built in to the planning conditions.

The problem is that, at one level, this can be seen as a 'bribe'.

"It's a good idea but one house could loose £75K in value overnight. "

In the South East maybe?

The system is designed to protect the rights of individuals over the common good. We're all so used to the concept that we don't know the alternatives that exist (in other countries).

There's perhaps an argument that there is a correlation between the introduction of a Planning System that contained no formal zoning (1947) and the Industrial decline of the UK ?