Background

1. BACKGROUND

1.1. Every borough has a policy that “encourages” the use of renewable energy in new developments – but simple encouragement rarely delivers results. Climate change is a major threat to the security and well-being of people around the globe, and protecting the environment for future generations is of paramount concern. In order to combat this threat there needs to be a change in the collective approach from the “cottage industry” to a fully mobilized mindset. There are four key rationales behind Merton’s UDP (and the revised LDF) renewable energy policy:

1. As a Global to Local initiative for helping the UK to meet it’s Kyoto commitments and domestic CO2 reduction targets.
2. As a way of addressing fuel poverty, and making Merton businesses more competitive by lowering their monthly energy bills.
3. As a mechanism for expanding the renewable and sustainable energy economy.
4. As a way of raising the profile of renewable energy and combating climate change in Merton, and stimulating the debate on establishing secure and sustainable energy sources for the future.

1.2. Planning outline
The local planning paradigm is evolving from a prosaic, site-specific, discipline towards a more sophisticated spatial planning approach, and as such, boroughs will no longer produce that cumbersome and inflexible local rule book called the Unitary Development Plans every ten years – but will, by 2008, have a collection of updateable policy specific “pamphlets” that will collectively be known as the Local Development Framework.

Until then however, we are caught in something of a no-mans-land between the old and the new where planning authorities are engaged in the twin tasks of “getting their heads around” the LDF while simultaneously bolting together their final UDP’s – which in many cases will be obsolete almost as soon as the ink is dry on the paper.

It is inevitable that this no-mans-land syndrome, exacerbated by the advent of other national and regional planning influences, has created a degree of uncertainty and blurring between the UDP and LDF - but of course where there is uncertainty there is also opportunity, and this very uncertainty provided the incubator for the Merton 10% policy. Although it was written into its UDP, it is in character more of an LDF policy in as much as it is a planning response to new CO2 reduction targets, fluctuating fossil fuel prices, fuel poverty, technological innovation, ever changing Government policy initiatives, and the growing collective awareness of climate change in general.

1.3. Merton policy history
Merton first included the 10% policy in its UDP second deposit draft in 2000 (prior to the inception of the GLA). It read: “Require all new industrial, warehousing and office development outside conservation areas and above a threshold of 1,000 sqm to incorporate renewable power generation equipment to provide at least 10% of predicted energy requirements.”

There were two objections to the proposed policy.

1. The Government Office for London: “Government advice on renewable energy (PPG22) gives no specific guidance on the acceptability of policies requiring distributed renewable power generation. Such a policy should not be included, unless it has been demonstrated to be a reasonable and feasible requirement.”
2. Chartered Institute of Professional Development: “Criterion (vii – the relevant section of the policy) makes unacceptable and unjustified requirements. These are not land use matters and could impose significant additional costs on development. The policy should encourage rather than require.” - (which would in effect render the policy impotent – AH).
   

1.3.1. In her final report (August 2002) the ODPM Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions on this were as follows: “As the Council (Merton) rightly points out, PPG22 was published some years ago. Since then the Government has published its Climate Change Programme, which sets a target for 10% of the UK’s electricity requirements to be met from renewable energy sources by 2010. RPG9 advises authorities to use their development control and building regulations processes to seek to influence incorporation of appropriate renewable energy heating or power systems in the design of new developments.

There is therefore unambiguous national and regional support for the approach adopted in criterion (vii) of policy E13, which cannot be achieved under current Building Regulations alone. (this is the key legal issue for allowing the policy – AH). It would be up to the developers to demonstrate how the requirement would render a particular development unviable.”

1.3.2. In light of the Inspectors report Merton rewrote the policy with 3 amendments:

1. Substituting the word “expect” for the word “require”.
2. Making it for all non-residential development rather than exclusively commercial/industrial, and in so doing catching schools, hospitals, doctors surgeries and community buildings etc.
3. Removing the conservation area exemption. The simple premise being that aesthetics is clearly subordinate to protecting the environment (and buildings) for future generations. The increasing severity of storms across the UK as a result of climate change will disproportionately damage older buildings likely to be in conservation areas - aesthetics is therefore being sacrificed (for a period) in the interests of long term protection.

In September 2003 Merton submitted its final draft UDP to the ODPM Planning Department for final scrutiny. The revised policy (PE13) read: “All new non-residential development above a threshold of 1,000 sqm will be expected to incorporate renewable energy production equipment to provide at least 10% of predicted energy requirements.”

1.4. Targets and Thresholds
The 10% target and 1,000m2 figures emerged from a combination of financial appraisals that showed it would not be an undue burden for developers, and a concern for smaller businesses. The first borough to propose a residential threshold was Croydon and it settled on 10. Nearly all emulating boroughs have the same target and thresholds, though recently some have considered higher percentage targets. 

1.5. Renewable energy definition
From the London Renewables Toolkit (2004)
(Claire Bonham-Carter, Faber Maunsell)

The following renewable energy technologies are described in detail (section 3.3-3.10 of the London Renewables Toolkit) and are used in the tables in Section 4.12 and 4.13 of the toolkit:

• Wind
• Phtovoltaics
• Solar hot water systems
• Biomass heating
• Biomass Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
• Ground sourced heating
• Ground sourced cooling

The following technologies may either become more widely available for use in London in the future or for example in the case of geothermal are unlikely ever to be appropriate for London and are mentioned briefly in section 3.11:

• Fuel cells using hydrogen from renewable sources
• Gas from anaerobic digestion
• Geothermal
• Ground cooling air systems
• Micro hydro
• Solar air collectors
  

1.5.1. Merton would add two amendments to the above:

• First - it would add biogas from pyrolysis to the list, and
• Second - it would clarify the situation with regard to CHPs. The use of a fossil fuel CHP will immediately reduce CO2 emissions by around 35%. As such it seems unreasonable to require the full 10% of pure renewables as well. A CHP will generate more kilowatts of thermal energy (hot water) than of electricity, and the developer will size the machine to meet the hot water requirements. Therefore it would be pointless to install water heating renewables, so Merton would ask for a lower percentage target – possibly 5% - but that that 5% should be electricity generating renewables.
  

1.5.2. In the future District Heat and Power (DHP) networks will need to be considered when implementing the policy. If the proposed building can be plugged into a DHP then it’s crucial to get the developer to design the building to suit the available energy systems rather than the other way round.