Leave it to us

This rule requires any new building to reduce its carbon emissions by at least 10% through the use of renewable energy sources. Since its introduction by the London Borough of Merton in 2003, it has been and is still being adopted by many other local authorities. But reports in the media suggest the government’s new draft planning policy statement will abolish the requirement (news p8).

Certainly the Home Builders Federation and the British Property Federation have not hidden their dislike of “Soviet-style planning”, as they describe it. They say the requirement is too prescriptive, inflexible and “not the best way to reduce carbon emissions”.

Other organisations are clearly in favour of the Merton Rule. The Renewable Energy Association claims it is flexible because it does not specify a particular technology, and that it encourages developers to reduce a building’s overall energy needs. There is even a petition on the government’s Number 10 website calling for the rule’s retention.

The risk with abolishing the rule is that without it, renewable energy will cease to be a planning requirement. Once the planning stick has disappeared, so too will a developer’s commitment to renewable technologies. If, however, the rule is retained, developers are at the mercy of local authorities’ green posturing and we will continue to get new buildings that incorporate inefficient renewable installations.

The government has denied speculation that planning policy will change. But perhaps it’s time it did. Local politics could be removed from the debate through the introduction of a national target of, say, 20% renewables for all new developments. And if government was less dogmatic about the means by which this target could be met then building services engineers, with their expert knowledge and experience of renewable installations, could be left to decide where investment would be most effectively channelled to achieve a workable solution. Here’s hoping.