Allowable Solutions, Pennies from Heaven?

This month we were joined by James Blackburn of Carbon Green Consulting Ltd for a CPD seminar about Sustainable Development in relation to the new National Planning Policy Framework and upcoming changes to Part L of the Building Regs.  We were also joined by our friends from the Sustainable Development Foundation for what turned out to be a lively debate.

James’ engaging presentation explained the key driving principles behind the new policies relating to sustainability, and took us through the broader implications in relation to the government’s zero carbon agenda and housing development (the full presentation is available to download on the CGC website).

A memorable image from the talk was that of swooning ‘Ethel the planning officer’, in need of smelling salts following the shock induced by being presented with the NPPF – a document which claims to slash bureaucracy in Local Authorities by reducing over 1000 pages of policy to a document merely 80ish pages long.  But once over the excitement of reduced reading times, what exactly is on offer? 

The hot topic of the day turned out to be ‘Allowable Solutions’; a controversial carbon credits system which will allow housing developers to ‘top up’ their credit when target carbon reductions are too difficult to achieve.  This ‘topping up’ will manifest itself as a contribution through the Local Authority (not dissimilar to an S106 Agreement).   A myriad of ‘Possible Approved ‘ measures are currently offered up as acceptable forms of AS, including: ‘Green Deal, District Heating projects, Social Housing Retrofit, Renewable Energy, Embodied Carbon Initiatives, Low Carbon (LED) Lighting…’

Whilst it was generally acknowledged that the good intentions behind Allowable Solutions are a positive ‘step in the right direction’, they were generally met with suspicion.  Reactions during the discussion included: ‘Who will check that they have been carried out effectively and a resulting reduction in carbon has been achieved?’, ‘There are too many options, why isn’t there one clear programme that the money goes towards?’ and even, ‘Could the contractors pop round to the neighbours’ houses and offer to insulate their homes whilst they were at it?’… 

Pooling resources freed up by the scheme in order to build large-scale renewable infrastructures at regional or national level seems like a viable plan in terms of economies of scale, however, the apparently vague and multifaceted nature of AS in their current form doesn’t inspire confidence that this would be managed effectively. 

On taking a step back, there seems to be an obvious broken link in the cycle.  If a major factor behind the need for AS is the prohibitive cost of zero carbon building, why not use the money in the pot to subsidise carbon-cutting building products, therefore making them more appealing to home owners and housing developers?  As construction industry professionals, shouldn’t we be lobbying for a solution which would improve the quality of our building stock, rather than offsetting the problem elsewhere?

Affordable Solutions have the potential to accelerate carbon reduction, if these pennies from heaven are channelled in the right direction.  With some rapid re-thinking of the ‘Possible Approved’ measures, could AS help us hit zero carbon targets in 2016?  Food for thought.