Clause 7 - Energy requirements of buildings
Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill
9:30 am
Mr Andrew Stunell (Chief Whip; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
I thank all those colleagues who have been able to join us again this morning. We made good progress last week and I hope that we can quickly come to a conclusion today with equal success, although judging from the smile on the Minister's face, I suspect that that may not be quite the case.
The clause clarifies that it is lawful for development plans drawn up by local planning authorities to specify the provision of energy from renewable sources in their developments. The London borough of Merton set a precedent with the policy adopted in its plan, which was based on the expectation that all non-residential developments of more than 1,000 sq m should include renewable energy production to provide 10 per cent. of energy requirements in a new building, where viable. There is now a list of a further 24 authorities undertaking a similar process. The clause is designed to prevent those 24 and others that follow them from facing the difficulties, hassle and uncertainty that Merton faced.
My point is in no way partisan. The Labour party controls the London borough of Merton, and the other 24 authorities are a good mixture by type, geographical location and political control. Perhaps the Committee will understand if I draw attention to the fact that one of the first authorities in the queue to follow Merton is the London borough of Bromley, and one of its Members of Parliament spoke on Second Reading. The clause would directly facilitate local authorities represented in the House by a wide range of Members with a considerable variety of outlooks, so I hope that nobody will accuse of riding a partisan hobby-horse.
The Minister has sent me a letter, which I have placed on the Table and which is available to other members of the Committee. I understand that he intends to speak to that letter. I seek some stronger and further assurances from the Minister. It is important that those authorities now in the process and those that may follow them should be given not only a no hassle guarantee, but some encouragement that following Merton is a good thing to do. The Minister's officials—not those concerned with building controls, but those from elsewhere in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—made it difficult for Merton to achieve what is now being achieved. At several steps along the way, officials from the Department told the borough in plain words, ''If you dropped this, it would a lot easier for everybody.''
One, perhaps fortunate, consequence was that Merton girded its loins, did the business anyway and challenged the ODPM to put up or shut up. Due to either mature consideration or perhaps embarrassment, the Department shut up. Merton now has the relevant provisions in its draft plan, unamended by the Department. News of the likelihood of hassle and conflict with the ODPM, spread through the powerful network of local government communication, has put off many local authorities. Goodness knows, there are enough problems between central and local government already, without stirring things up. It is a significant disincentive if the word on the net is, ''Folks, it would be much better if you didn't do this''. I hope that the Minister agrees, as I think his letter sets out, that the question should not be whether authorities can squeeze such plans through, but whether they should be positively encouraged to do so. I want a no hassle guarantee.
One qualification in the Minister's letter relates to ensuring that there are no undue burdens on business. I certainly agree about that. It is like asking whether the provisions should be reasonable: of course they should be reasonable, and of course there should not be undue burdens. The Green Alliance, among others, has set out mechanisms that might be a reasonable test of whether there are undue burdens, taking into account land prices, for instance. Merton managed to satisfy that test, and it would be helpful if the Minister said that the ODPM was minded not to be unduly restrictive in its interpretation of an undue burden.
The Minister's letter sets quite a lot of store by the idea that we should wait for planning policy statement 22, which will come in the summer. On another occasion, I had some fun at the Government's expense with the civil service definition of ''spring''. On that occasion, spring ended on 31 July. If spring ends on 31 July, I want to know when summer starts and ends. Please may we not be left for month after month with uncertainty hanging about? In such circumstances, local authorities, which have other timetables to meet with regard to plan setting, will say, ''Oh—''. I will not use the non-parliamentary word that sprang to mind. An authority will say, ''Well, skip it. We'll go ahead and leave out the provision,'' and for another 10 years, that authority will lose the opportunity that is there.
I want to know what the timing is, and I want to know that the Minister will provide encouragement. I hope that he will also pick up some of the strong points made in the Green Alliance consultation, which was held in January and attended by officials from the ODPM and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It was pointed out that there is tremendous advantage to sustainability if we allow the concept to include combined heat and power. I hope that, as well as speaking to the letter, the Minister will say that his Department is now minded to ensure that the Thames Gateway project, for instance, will have a significant slice of zero-energy housing. The Government are the landlord and planning authority, and, with the ODPM, the approver of
plans, and it should be simple for such a straightforward step to be taken.
I hope that I have made it clear that if the Government give me the assurance that I want, the clause will not be necessary. In that case, it will be on the record, available to any planning officer in the country, that a Minister speaking on behalf of the ODPM said that sustainability is a right and proper thing to include in local plans; that the Government want to encourage local authorities to do so, and that they will do nothing to put barriers in the way of authorities doing that if they so choose. If the Minister can give that assurance, I will be content.