The importance of being patient

Aristotle once said that “patience is bitter, but its fruit is sweet”. In our collective bid to hasten the implementation of onsite renewable energy measures across all local authorities, we may be in danger of dismissing the virtue of patience as little more than a method of procrastination used by people who are less committed to combating climate change.

The latest supplement to PPS1, Planning and Climate Change requires planning authorities to develop targets for renewable and low-carbon energy – with the caveat of where it is “feasible or viable”. It encourages planning authorities to require onsite or near-site renewable or low-carbon energy generation through the planning system, to reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions in the built environment.

While the supplement is well intentioned, we favour a more flexible approach in the interest of achieving longer-term sustainability – one which integrates lateral thinking, foresight and patience. Specifically, we have identified potential difficulties with on or near-site generation, particularly for small sites seeking viable renewable alternatives. Small sites often generate insufficient demand for many of the sustainable energy alternatives to be viable. Biomass combined heat and power (CHP) plants are often identified as being the most economic way of meeting renewables targets, but for small residential schemes this approach can cause problems because the heat generated by the plant cannot be used. It can even mean that a swimming pool is designed into the scheme to take the excess heat generated.

For small sites it would be more logical to combine sites of different uses over a wider area (land demand for biomass boilers is about 1.5Ha per dwelling), so that the energy and heat requirements can be better balanced, and more sustainable solutions identified. However, this is often very challenging to achieve. Similarly, it has not escaped our notice that further steps are needed to make it more economically viable for renewable energy developments to link and contribute to the grid.

We are also beginning to see a number of developments integrating both biomass and gas boilers, so that the gas alternative can be used when biomass is not an effective option. However, experience tells us that the relative convenience of gas is likely to result in the so-called better option being sidelined. What’s more, there is evidence of an emerging backlash against biomass boilers in London and Edinburgh, due to air quality concerns. The drive to promote biomass solutions is also leading to transport and ecological issues and the depletion of other valuable natural resources worldwide as we try to grow biomass economically. For example, a recently commissioned biomass plant in South Wales is to use fuel from North America. In such scenarios, we must also begin to question the viability of a consistent supply of sufficient biomass fuel. Furthermore the cost of biomass fuel is rising rapidly as demand increases.

Overall, there is a risk that having to plan now to meet the energy targets based on today’s approach will lead to the wrong long-term solution. A major shortcoming is the government’s requirement for renewable energy to be either on-site or if near-site, connected by a private wire to the development. Although the intention behind the latter is admirable, the lack of flexibility is likely to be counter-productive if it results in low carbon technologies for small sites being deemed unviable.

Long-term energy sustainability will be served best by a culture change across the development sector.

For most sites an area-wide approach is needed where new developments, often being rolled out over different timescales, can all contribute to delivering sustainable energy infrastructure. Such forward planning would enable us to integrate the potential and capacity for future renewable technologies into present plans and designs, to facilitate upgrades and changes in capacity. Technology rolled out in 2016 could deliver more towards renewable targets in a few short years than we could ever hope to achieve over the next 10 years using today’s approach. In this scenario, patience is indeed a virtue.

In parallel, the DCLG believes that economic development – including more housing – is compatible with reducing carbon emissions and ensuring new developments are protected from the effects of climate change. It would appear councils should be drawing up proposals to cut emissions which also support the increased housing targets as well as those relating to jobs and regeneration. We hope they are right.

However, we suspect that while renewable energy remains expensive (for the near future), development costs will rise, impacting on the pace and quality of regeneration.

Quite simply, achieving the most sustainable solutions requires a flexible and varied approach that reflects local conditions. In our opinion, the guidance will force planning authorities to take energy issues more seriously, but compliance should not be pursued at the expense of the best long-term solutions.

The interests of long-term energy sustainability will be served best by nothing short of a culture change across the development sector. By drawing on a degree of patience, we can identify the most appropriate alternatives. The framework for collaboration and co-operation set out in the policy will help facilitate the move towards a low-carbon economy, and foster a greater shared understanding of the actions needed to address the environmental imperatives.