Hang on, Ken

Until recently, the planning system largely relied on the Building Regulations to deal with energy efficiency. But as national and regional governments pile on the pressure and as more local development frameworks are unveiled, developers will often be required to use on-site renewable energy technologies.

Ken Livingstone’s London Plan, published last year, states that the mayor and boroughs should:

• Support the mayor’s energy strategy by improving energy efficiency and increasing the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources
• Request an assessment of the energy demand of large development proposals. This should demonstrate the steps taken to apply the mayor’s energy hierarchy
• Require large developments to show how they would generate a proportion of the their electricity or heat needs from renewables, wherever feasible.

The ODPM defines “large developments” as more than 10 dwellings, or more than 1000 m2 of commercial space. Yet most of my clients would not consider such schemes to be large.

In London, the mayor’s energy strategy expects 10% of any new development’s energy demand to come from renewable energy generated on site. Although councils are still generally willing to negotiate on this figure, especially for smaller schemes, it will be necessary to get as close to the 10% target as possible if a proposal is going to be referred to the mayor.

As well as their environmental benefits, renewable energy and energy-efficient design and technologies can result in lower running costs for consumers. However, it is the developer that has to fund the higher capital costs. Such costs will clearly have an impact on the viability of any scheme and may result in a need to cut costs elsewhere.

I back the mayor’s promotion of renewable energy, but there is still not enough guidance for developers and councils about the planning implications of such technologies.

For example, the use of photovoltaic cells involves the installation of panels on the roof. However, these panels are usually clearly visible. What view should be taken if, for example, the site lies in a conservation area? A similar argument can arise in relation to the visual impact of wind turbines. Could this approach harm our carefully protected towns and cities?

Biomass heating can be stoves or boilers that use biomass (fuel derived from living organisms) instead of traditional fossil fuels. In most cases, the biomass used is wood chips.

There is not enough guidance on the planning implications of renewable technologies

As you can imagine, a lot of wood chips are required to meet the heating demands of a development. So, a suitably sized storage area must be provided – that is, part of the proposed development’s floor area will need to be given up. Second, numerous deliveries of biomass are required, which will increase the number of vehicle trips for a particular development and affect the road network. Finally, biomass heating requires a large flue to ensure local air pollution is not affected, which again will have a visual impact.

Are more trucks on the road and renewable energy the right answer?

Specific renewable energy options are not going to be appropriate for every development. It is important that an informed decision be made and, where possible, a more feasible alternative be suggested. There needs to be a balance between achieving the best in terms of on-site renewable energy and ensuring schemes are acceptable to planners, and making them commercially viable.

In certain situations, it may be more appropriate to take a pragmatic view. Where it is not possible to specify on-site renewable energy technologies, developers could instead contribute to off-site renewable energy schemes. This approach could contribute more than smaller on-site schemes collectively.

Developers and local planning authorities need more guidance on the planning implications of renewable technologies. Developers are generally happy to provide this, but often do not know how best to do it and, more importantly, what will be feasible. Shouldn’t the mayor and councils take the lead? Ken Livingstone is proposing solar panels for the roof of City Hall, but what are councils doing?