While Barwood Land support the Council’s objectives to tackling climate change, and introducing new measures to do so, this has to be done in accordance with the requirements of the Local Plan process.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Local Plans to include a viability assessment to ensure policies are feasible and deliverable. As the current Local Plan was adopted in 2017 it did not include a viability assessment.
While it is noted that the viability assessment for the DPD has included consideration of current anticipated costs for additional policies, including accessibility, EV charging, biodiversity net gain, CIL and S106 this does not include any assessment of additional requirements which may come through the Local Plan Review.
In this context we believe that while it is helpful to consider additional policy requirements this should be done in line with the Local Plan Review process to ensure the policies are viable in the context of additional amendments to the Local Plan.
In addition the assessment does not appear to give consideration to potential carbon offset costs in the scenario where development may not be able to achieve net zero onsite. To ensure the assessment is robust additional scenarios should be tested to consider the costs of offsetting and that impact on viability.
Furthermore in reviewing the viability assessment there is a mismatch between the Benchmark Land Values (BLV) stated in the report in Section 4.49 and the BNP values noted in the assessment tables in Section 6. In some cases this will both negatively and positively impact on the viability results. This needs reviewing to ensure the results of the assessment are correct.
Section 6 of the viability assessment clearly shows that policies of the DPD will have a negative impact on land values for residential development, for the mid-range value price point (E) the appraisal shows a negative impact for medium, large scale housing as well as most of the flatted schemes assessed. This shows that without a reduction in costs in other areas, i.e. the reduction in affordable housing provision in the majority of cases the policies are not viable for residential development.
We note that the viability report expects costs to reduce over time, and we agree, however for this to occur the supply chain and skills to implement some systems, for example heat pumps needs time to become established. This is a significant reason as to why the Future Homes Standard (FHS) sets out the timeframe of 2025, to allow this to develop and costs reduce.
In this context we believe the DPD is premature and should be reconsidered in terms of its viability in conjunction with the Local Plan Review. Furthermore Section 6 of the viability assessment shows that the policy requirements are not currently viable without significant reductions in costs from other areas, i.e. affordable housing. This suggests that the Council are proposing to introduce local standards that fail to meet the viability tests of the NPPF.

The policy states new development should achieve net zero carbon emissions through reducing energy demand, incorporating zero or low carbon energy sources, and offsetting residual operational emissions to net zero.
While Policy NZC1 states development should be net zero, it does not clearly present the definition of net zero, nor what is meant by being, ‘net zero carbon at the point of determination of planning permission’ as referenced in Policy NZC2(D).
To meet the overarching policy requirement the following sub-policies are proposed:
• Policy NZC2(A) requires development to achieve a 75% carbon reduction above Part L 2013, this relates to the regulated emissions of new development only.
• Policy NZC2(B) sets out a requirement for development to consider zero and low carbon sources of energy. It is noted that the supporting text for this policy states this clause requires an Energy Statement to be prepared setting out how the residual energy demand of development should be met, however this is not what the Policy as it currently stands requires.
• Policy NZC2(C)) sets out the use of ‘net zero ready’ technology in the event fossil fuels are used onsite.
• Policy NZC2(D) states that where development cannot demonstrate that it is net zero carbon at the point of determination of a planning permission, is required to address residual carbon emissions via payment to the Council’s fund or approved alternative.
These policy requirements do not clearly define net zero, or how these policies require development to reduce emissions before offsetting. While we note that net zero is the likely intent of the policies it is not currently clear what definition of net zero the Council is using, nor does the policies definitively set out what the onsite building level requirement is.
Given the issues of viability in Section 1 we believe that this Policy is amended to align with the requirements and timings of the Future Homes Standard (FHS) and national guidance which is aiming to deliver Net Zero Ready housing over time.

Sets out a requirement for new development to achieve a 75% carbon reduction above Part L 2013, bringing forward the requirements of the full Future Homes Standard (FHS) due to be implemented in 2025. In Section 2 of the DPD the Council notes that the Government has indeed retained the legislation in the Planning and Energy Act 2008 which allows Local Authorities to set standards beyond the requirements of the Building Regulations. It is noted that this Policy will apply to full or reserved matters applications.
However, the FHS consultation response goes on to set out that the Planning for the Future white paper sets out options for a simpler planning process, aiming for setting standards nationally. It also states, ‘as we move to higher levels of energy efficiency standards for new homes with the 2021 Part L uplift and Future Homes Standard, it is less likely that local authorities will need to set local energy efficiency standards in order to achieve our shared net zero goal.’
The FHS consultation response also provides detail on the Roadmap to the FHS confirming that the interim target will be implemented from June 2022, followed by technical work and consultation on the full FHS in Spring 2023 before implementation in 2025.
A significant reason for the proposed timeline to the full FHS is related to the need to upskill and develop the supply chain to deliver the FHS, noting in particular the importance of expertise in using heat pumps and how large a step forward the full standard is compared to the current regulations. The consultation response states, ‘We believe the timeline set out in this document delivers our net zero commitments, while providing industry with the time it needs to develop the supply chains and skills that will be necessary to deliver the Future Homes Standard and accounting for market factors.’ While the policy can bring forward the full FHS requirement it is likely the supply chain and skills will not yet be available to deliver this effectively and could lead to sub-standard development, or delay development impacting on the Council’s housing delivery plans.
In addition as noted in the response to Section 1, aligning this policy with the FHS timeframe will give the sector time to upskill and build the supply chain necessary to deliver this standard, as well as reducing costs to make these requirements more viable.
In this context we believe that the Council should stick with the Government’s proposed timeline for the FHS, noting that the Government believes that this timeframe will help meet the UK’s zero carbon target. If the DPD is published ahead of the FSH timeframe, there should be a transition period to ensure the DPD is not ahead of the requirements of national policy.

Sets out a requirement for the inclusion of an energy statement, with consideration of onsite renewable energy generation, use of heat sources and networks, or other available low carbon energy sources. It also states the use of fossil fuels should be avoided unless it can be clearly demonstrate this will be unviable (from a capital cost and operational point of view), or available options will not fully meet the energy demands. It is noted that this Policy will apply to full or reserved matters applications.
In the first instance the policy as it is written does not specifically set any target for the deployment of zero or low carbon energy sources but requires options to be considered and where possible installed. The supporting text shows it is the intention for developers to utilise onsite generation or low carbon systems to reduce emissions however it is not clearly set out in the policy that this is the case.
While we recognise there is a need to move away from fossil fuel use from 2025, and to help meet the UK zero carbon target. As noted in the responses to Section 1, and Policy NZC2A, bringing this requirement forward is not currently viable, nor is the supply chain adequately developed to deliver these requirements effectively. This is a large part of why the Future Homes Standard has an implementation date of 2025 to allow these issues to be resolved, and therefore continues to allow the use of fossil fuels. In addition the FHS is clear in not setting prescriptive requirements on how developers meet both the interim and full FHS standards.
In this context it is considered that the policy should be amended to allow development to continue to meet the requirements of the FHS in line with the Governments guidance, with provision made to future proof development as set out in Policy NZC2(D) and enable net zero ready development.
It is noted that both Policies NZC2(A) and NZC2(B) will apply to both new full applications and reserved matters applications. While we agree in principle with the creation of new policies which apply to new applications, provided this follows the appropriate process, applying new policies to existing outline permissions and reserved matters applications is not appropriate.
Reserved matters applications are required to meet the conditions attached to an outline planning permission and agreements made as part of an S106 agreement. In the case of an existing outline planning permission this will have already gone through a process of design, viability, and negotiation with the Council around S106 payments which will have been based on the site land values and requirement in place at the time of the permission. This will not have considered these additional policies and it is therefore not possible to retrospectively apply new policies to an existing permission without renegotiation or consideration of the viability impacts on development.
As noted in the response to Section 1 the requirements have already been shown to be unviable for the majority of residential development and additional requirements at this stage of a sites application and design process will not be viable.
In this context we would suggest the removal of the requirement for Policies NZC2(A) and NZC2(B) to apply to reserved matters applications, and instead applied at the outline planning application stage. If the Council insists that there will be a requirement at the Reserved Matters stage, there will need to be a transition period, where Reserved Matters applications will not be considered against these additional policy requirements, unless the associated outline planning permission was received after the DPD is published.

States where renewable or low carbon options (in line with Policy NZC2(B) cannot meet the full energy demand, or are unviable the developments are required to incorporate “zero carbon-ready” technology to allow future decarbonisation of energy.
We support the provision of systems in homes which allow for development to be zero carbon ready and incorporate the benefits of decarbonising energy systems, this is a key requirement of the FHS and can therefore be achieved through compliance with national policy and should be reflected in the Policy.

States where development cannot demonstrate that it is net zero carbon at the point of determination of planning permission, it will be required to address any residual emissions via a contribution to the Council’s carbon offset fund, or via a verified local off-site offsetting scheme. The offsetting needs to be considered over a 30 year period and can take into account changing emissions over time, i.e. from the decarbonisation of the electricity network where projections are provided by the Government.
The supporting text notes that the cost of offsetting should be determined by multiplying the 30 year emissions of development by the average carbon market price for the preceding 12 month period, taken from the Carbon Emissions Allowance from the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. As noted in the response to Section 1 the potential cost of offsetting via this route has not been considered as part of the viability assessment.
We agree with the principle of carbon offsetting as a last resort for residual emissions and where they are guaranteed to deliver carbon savings. To ensure the policy is deliverable the Council must establish a carbon offset fund and associated projects that guarantee the delivery of the quantities of carbon associated with each application.
With respect to the most appropriate guidance, The UK Green Building Council has prepared guidance on carbon offsetting as part of its Net Zero Framework which sets out clear principles for carbon offsetting. These are:
• Real;
• Avoid Leakage;
• Measurable;
• Permanence;
• Additional;
• Independently verified;
• Unique; and
• Avoid social and environmental harms.
We believe there should be greater flexibility in how the offsetting can be provided, and consideration should be given to other guidance on carbon offsetting and how it can be delivered.
We would note that the effects of carbon emissions are wider than the local area, and while offsetting locally has a benefit to the District, GHG emissions are a national and international issue, we therefore believe that the ability to offset carbon via alternative projects should not be limited by the District boundary. For example there may be opportunities outside of the area to achieve a greater carbon benefit, potentially via national decarbonisation schemes. Or alternatively there may not be any suitable local projects that can be funded.
Evidence from the application of the London Plan carbon offsetting requirements shows that while the collection of offset funds has been significant it has taken a significant period of time before some London Boroughs have been able to allocate funds or create carbon reduction projects. (ADD REF)
We would therefore suggest that the alternative offsetting option is widened to allow any project that meets the principles of offsetting within the guidance provided by the UKGBC. If the Council is intent on the creation of a local fund then we strongly believe this fund should be audited on an annual basis by an independent third party to ensure that it is achieving the carbon savings promised and if not, then funds should be returned to the developer after two years to allow the procurement of verified high quality offsets.
If contributions towards an offsetting scheme will required through S106, this will need to be considered at outline or full planning application stage, as it is not appropriate to retrospectively apply new policies to an existing permission (at Reserved Matters stage) without renegotiation or consideration of the viability impacts on development.

States where the nature or location of the site (for instance impact on the significance heritage assets) means that complying with the requirements of this DPD can be demonstrated to result in a development proposal becoming unviable, Policy DM2 of the Local Plan will apply.
We have set out our concerns regarding the viability assessment supporting the DPD in regard to Section 1 specifically. The viability assessment clearly shows that policies of the DPD will have a negative impact on land values for residential development, for the mid-range value price point (E) the appraisal shows a negative impact for medium, large scale housing as well as most of the flatted schemes assessed. This shows that without a reduction in costs in other areas, i.e. the reduction in affordable housing provision in the majority of cases the policies are not viable for residential development.
This suggests that the Council are proposing to introduce local standards that fail to meet the viability tests of the NPPF, and it is inappropriate to rely on Policy NZC2(E) as an alternative to ensuring new policies are not widely unviable, and to a development meeting the required design standards.