BASE HEADER

Yes

ID sylw: 108197

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: St Philips

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction- 24- Embodied carbon? 2.91 St Philips broadly supports the SWA’s approach to ensuring future developments deliver high-quality developments that seek to tackle climate change with proactive sustainable measures. However, St Philips fundamentally considers that policies must be sufficiently flexible, fit for purpose and well evidenced – as required by the NPPF. 2.92 St Philips recognises the importance of reducing embodied carbon within the development process. However, embodied carbon emissions are unregulated in the UK. Current policy and regulation focus solely on operational energy use, as distinct from embodied carbon. There currently does not exist a nationally approved regulator or nationally recognised standard, national planning policy or building regulation requirement to assess and report embodied carbon emissions or whole life cycle carbon assessments – indeed the Future Homes Standards - MHCLG Consultation on changes to Parts L and F of the Building Regulations do not propose an embodied carbon target. 2.93 Whilst the SWAs are within their rights to deviate from the Future Homes Standard and Building Regulations, the NPPF is clear that the “preparation and review of all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence.” (Para 32). In this context, whilst supportive in principle, St Philips is concerned that the SWAs are seeking to make provision for a policy that deviates from national requirements without providing sufficient justification. Indeed, none of the SWA’s evidence base produced to date outlines policy options for embodied carbon; albeit it is noted that the SWA’s SWLP’s Technical Evidence ‘Future Work’ suggests that ‘Climate Change Evidence’ will be prepared to support the SWLP, alongside the ‘Site Delivery & Viability Studies’. However, this evidence would need to sufficiently demonstrate that such an approach is justified (Para 36b, NPPF), aspirational but deliverable (Para 16b, NPPF), and does not undermine the deliverability of the Local Plan (Para 35, NPPF). 2.94 St Philips would also note that other Councils have proposed a similar requirement for developments, which have not been accepted by Inspectors. In particular, in 2022 West Oxfordshire District Council [WODC] submitted its Area Action Plan [AAP] for a Salt Cross Garden Village – a case study recognised in the SWA’s ‘Climate Change Baseline Report (2022) at paragraph 4.5.4. The AAP included Draft Policy 2 (Net Zero Carbon Development), which required all new development to be net zero on-site through the use of ultra-low energy fabric specification, low carbon technologies, on-site renewable energy generation and embodied carbon reductions – Notably, Policy 2 required developments to meet a < 500 kg CO2/m2 requirement. 2.95 However, the Inspector felt that the policy was inconsistent with national policy, as the standards within it amounted to a significant uplift on Building Regulations – which conflicted with then Secretary of State for Communities and Government – Eric Pickles MP – Written Ministerial Statement [WMS] in March 2015, which stated that policies should “not be used to set conditions on planning permissions with requirements above the equivalent of the energy requirement of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes”. In addition, the Inspector noted that the 2015 WMS “remains current national policy on this matter” (IR124) – indeed, this position remains in the PPG (PPG ID: 6-012-20190315). 2.96 The Inspector also highlighted that whilst Section 1 of the Planning and Energy Act 2008 does allow for some policies to exceed energy requirements of building regulations if they are deemed reasonable and consistent with national policies, in that instance, the requirements were not reasonable (IR30). Furthermore, the Inspector highlighted that: • There was a lack of evidence base to demonstrate the appropriateness of building typologies and how key performance indicators were selected over alternatives; • The standards within the plan were too rigid, and could not be realistically met by the end user; and • The standards of the policy were not flexible when having regard to the ever-changing net zero building policy nor to “technological and market advancements and more stringent nationally set standards, including within the Building Regulations” (IR137). 2.97 Consequently, the Inspector suggested a series of modifications to the policy – including the deletion of the embodied carbon KPI – and suggested below amendment to the policy wording: “An energy statement will be required for all major development, which should demonstrate the following: …Embodied carbon – reducing the impact of construction by minimising the amount of upfront embodied carbon emissions including appropriate embodied carbon targets. A calculation of the expected upfront embodied carbon of buildings and full lifecycle modelling” 2.98 Furthermore, regard should still be given to the then Minister of State for Housing’s – Lee Rowley MP – Written Ministerial Statement [WMS] in December 2023. Whilst this was challenged in the High Court by Rights Community Action, the case was dismissed, meaning the WMS remains current government policy and a material consideration. 2.99 In light of the above, St Philips would highlight that the Government’s intention is to achieve zero carbon by 2025 through a step-by-step introduction of higher building regulations. Whilst – in principle – the SWAs are within their rights to deviate from the Future Homes Standard and Building Regulations where evidence justifies a higher requirement – NPPF paragraph 32, PPG and the 2023 WMS –St Philips note that sufficient evidence to support this approach is required.