The fuel crisis, sustainability and planning appeals

‘Sustainability’ is making its way into everyday conversations about fuel prices as people look at their fuel bills and ask, “Is this sustainable?” meaning, “Can I afford to carry on like this?”  As ‘sustainability’ is probably the most over-used word in planning, what does its elevation into normal language mean for planning appeals?

Fuel bills bring sustainability into focus

With fuel prices rocketing, the House Builders Federation have drawn attention to fact fuel bills for a new home are on average £455 per annum compared to £890 for an older property.  Their recent report “Greener, Cleaner, Cheaper” reports 84% of new build properties received an A or B EPC rating for energy efficiency, while just 3% of existing properties reached the same standard in the year to September 2021. In contrast, 58% of existing dwellings had an efficiency rating of D-G.  It’s hardly surprising energy efficiency is a key consideration for home movers, given rising fuel costs. The previously rather woolly concept of sustainability has just come into sharp focus on the bank statement.

Carbon emissions in planning appeals

Many local planning authorities have declared a “Climate Emergency” and this is increasingly cited as a material planning consideration by appellants, LPAs and objectors.  The average carbon emissions for household heating are 3.81 tonnes of carbon per dwelling per year, whereas new build homes are reported as having average emissions of 1.43 tonnes of carbon per year.  You might assume the eco credentials of new development would therefore be beneficial in an appeal.  However the most common responses in recent appeals appears to be for Inspectors to bat the issue away with one of the following two arguments:

• Eco dismissal #1 – any new development has similar eco benefits so it has no impact on the issues on which the appeal turns, such as location, design, etc
• Eco dismissal #2  - the development’s eco credentials are mitigation for the potential negative effects of development, and therefore hold limited weight as a positive benefit in the planning balance.

If carbon emissions have so little impact on planning decisions, it begs the question, “Is sustainability becoming a meaningless term?"  Surely not, just as sustainability is appearing in £ signs writ large on utility bills.

The first eco dismissal reasoning is a salutary reminder that planning Inspectors display a thick skin in relation to most comments on energy efficiency.  Carbon emissions are often considered more an issue for Building Control than planning.

Nevertheless it can’t be right that reducing carbon emissions in the housing stock does not equate to a benefit.  We shouldn’t need to demolish an older dwelling in order to demonstrate a net benefit from a newer one.  The housing market is “sticky” and change only comes once alternatives are available.  You have to build the new homes before the old ones will change.  There is a valid case that this constitutes a benefit.

Addressing the limited weight given to eco credentials in appeals

Firstly, although the appeal statement is largely written for the Inspector, it also influences objectors.  Local residents ‘get it’ that new development gives them more opportunity to move from older, colder buildings into warmer, greener buildings.  Looking ahead to their own needs is a persuasive argument for some objectors.

Secondly, Local Plans increasingly contain policies which refer to energy efficiency and carbon emissions.  Every policy which supports development is relevant to an appeal.  The LPAs decision notice generally only cites policies supporting refusal, but the appellant can fairly draw attention to other policies in the Local Plan supportive of their development, including those referring to carbon emissions, energy efficiency and climate change.  It is always worth doing so. The appeal has to be decided against the policies in the Local Development Plan, taken as a whole.

Thirdly, the view that eco-credentials only make development less bad, rather create eco benefits, seems to assume that the existing housing stock will improve of its own accord.  I live in an older house and can tell you it will never be as eco-friendly as a new build home, no matter how much retrofitting it gets.  Not to mention the problems in getting planning consent for external cladding of old walls - think of the neighbours' objections to change in character.  Someone will doubtless mention the Grenville Tower disaster…. It's difficult to imagine all existing homes being retrofitted to modern insulation standards unless there is competition from new builds. New development is often a catalyst for raising expectations significantly.  Without it, walls unchanged since they were built 50, 100, 150 years ago will remain unchanged for the next 50 years.  New development brings the real benefit of driving higher expectations, putting pressure on older stock to retrofit or be replaced.

Finally, “moving to a low carbon economy” is one of the three key objectives set out in paragraph 8c of the Framework.  If electric cars are beneficial to this objective, then so surely are highly insulated new homes.  Let’s hope planning takes on board the public’s new understanding of “sustainable”, rather than dismiss eco-improvements for being less than perfect.

To find appeals that are relevant to you, see the search on our Home page.