Question 1: In which order would you place these improvements to council property and why?
a) install solar panels (and batteries) b) change heating to air source heat pumps c) improve insulation wherever possible d) minimise energy use through education and perseverance
Question 2: Councils are allowed to require building standards that exceed the national standard. Should Dorset do so as many developments (Foundry Lea in Bridport) will be substandard before they are complete? Can you think of a strategy that would keep us from signing contracts with standards that will become obsolete in the very near future?
(The additional cost of including high environmental standards in new domestic housing is somewhere between £ 5,000-12,000. The cost of retrofit is more like £20,000)
Question 3: The government has made onshore wind development almost impossible since 2015 (though the department in charge says that the UK has quadrupled generation since 2010. Both statements are true). What can the council do to encourage this lowest-cost energy source?
Question 4: Should planning disallow development that overreaches the capacity of the current sewage system (or require the developer to build new sewage capacity)? Do you feel our nationally dictated housing allocations are sensible? Should councils have more say on how these numbers are derived?
Question 5: Which step comes first in reducing our transport emissions?
a) siting EV points across the county b) reviewing options for travelling less with frequent reminders (including improving our zoom capabilities) c) having a flat rate for bus travel (ie £1 for any journey) d) council cars are replaced (when they are due be retired) with modest electric cars.
The Answers
Answers to local Election questionnaire
Julian Jones:
Question 1 1 Insulation, 2 ASHPs, 3 minimise energy use, 4 solar panels
This is based on the fairly rapid advance in the renewable share of electricity generation which makes council efforts to install solar on their often unsuitable properties (blocks of flats notably) counterproductive in resource consumption terms. Also how would they finance the upfront cost; a problem which also applies to some of the other options.
Question 2. If Councils are allowed to require higher building standards then we don’t need a strategy, we simply need the courage as a Council to say applications will be refused if they don’t specify the standards which will be required in future. If that means failing to deliver the number of new dwellings in the plan so be it. The Council could actually square the circle by using prudential borrowing to fund a major programme of council house and flat building, one and two bed at social rent levels, while rejecting unsatisfactory private sector applications which normally entail larger properties.
Question 3. The Council should support offshore windfarms in principle and onshore wind farms in suitable locations. The Planning Committees should recognise that a small vocal minority objecting does not provide grounds for refusing applications.
Question 4. It is the responsibility of the Water companies to increase sewer capacity when necessary if new developments would cause capacity problems. To the other two questions in No.4 my answers are no to the first, yes to the second.
Question 5. These 4 options are not really the decisive measures. We need to radically raise the cost of private car use including parking while expanding bus and rail capacity (incl. railfreight), improving cycle and walking environments, cutting the need to travel by better planning of urban centres. Replacing 35 million fossil fuelled vehicles by the same number of electric vehicles could actually do more harm than good overall.
Kelvin Clayton:
Question 1 I do not think it helps placing these improvements in order. In principle, they should all be pursued simultaneously, though in practice each building would need to be assessed on an individual basis to determine which would be the most effective.
Question 2 Yes, in theory Dorset Council can require building standards for new builds to be in excess of the national standards, but in practice this is very difficult bring about. The main issue here is that in effect the planning system in this country puts too much power in the hands of the developer, particularly with regard to ‘viability’. If the developer can put an argument together that demonstrates that they would not make sufficient profit by building to these standards the chances are that they would win. The impetus to bring about change in this, and many other planning issues, needs to come from Westminster.
Question 3 In terms of large scale solar arrays and onshore wind developments Dorset Council’s action is limited by the fact much of Dorset is deemed a National Landscape (formerly an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). These make approving any planning application very problematic. Ideally there needs to be a change to national planning guidelines.
In terms of offshore wind the restrictions lie at the door of Crown Estates who are not currently accepting new applications
What Dorset Council can do is to encourage local energy generation. Evidence suggests that objections to small local wind turbines start to fall away when local residents are the recipients for locally generated cheap energy. The Council could also start a campaign that encourages the installation of solar pv on as many industrial buildings as possible.
Question 4 Yes, no, and yes.
In theory the planning process does take into account the capacity of the sewage system, but the planning authority tends to rely on reports from outside agencies to make that assessment.
No, nationally dictated housing allocations are far from sensible. Both the type, number and location of new housing developments should be the decision of the planning authority following an assessment of local need and consultation with local residents. The focus should be on building one and two bedroom properties for both sale and rent.
Question 5 Again, I don’t think placing these actions in priority order helps. The most important issue here is that public transport needs to be a cheaper and more convenient way to travel that private transport. This though would require the strategic support of the national government.
Whilst we do need to move to EVs, I’m not convinced that this is the long term solution other than for local travel in very small and light vehicles.
Dorset Council is replacing its cars with EVs, and EV charging points are being rolled out across the county.
Dave Bolwell:
Question 1
The question is unclear, are you referring to Offices/schools etc. or are you including housing ?
Regardless of my request for clarification It would seem most sensible to improve insulation where possible to avoid wasting energy. This will vary depending on the individual circumstances and how far a property has already installed the options that you list.
Air source heat pumps are most effective in terms of energy saving when powered by solar panels but they do not suit every application, I note that you do not include Ground Source heat pumps as an option, a perfectly viable option when installed during the build. Any of these 3 individually would be an improvement but better as a well-designed combination package.
Minimise energy use through education etc. would be relatively cheap but this will only affect those who are prepared to be educated.
Question 2 Yes we should demand building standards that exceed the national standard but only if they are realistic and achievable. The National Standards are laid down by Government and standards should be led by them. Because the Government is failing in implementing these “exceeded standards” themselves and leaving it to a Local Councils it is “passing the buck” and could lead to a patchwork of housing standards across the country. This also would probably mean that Local Councils will have to employ experts to decide what the standards should be? Developers may avoid certain areas to build in due to locally imposed high standards and then this may affect the ability to house our local people. There is a balance to be achieved, Councils should also take charge and build our own houses, then we would have some control in implementing build standards.
It is unavoidable, given the timescales between receiving planning permission and completion of large and even small-scale developments that standards may change given the advances in knowledge, technology and materials. You refer to many developments being “substandard” before they are completed and standards being obsolete in the very near future. There has to be an understanding of the house building process, the scale of the proposed changes and where a particular build project has reached, before any comment can be made. If the changes affect approved designs then, as things stand, a developer cannot and should not be forced to implement a change to use future standards when they were not in force at the time of approval. Imagine houses already being approved and almost finished and then a change is proposed that would entail a complete rebuild.
However, if the changes are important but minor in terms of the build and can be implemented at little extra cost on a particular building depending on it’s build stage then this should be encouraged but I fear this would be impractical and difficult to manage. There has to be a delay in implementing changes.
I do believe, however, that contracts should somehow include the power to make developers include the ability to easily “retrofit” future changes that will be required to comply with proposed new future standards, “where practical”, depending on the requirements to meet the standard and that last comment is where the problem lies. This may difficult especially on a large development with potentially a 10 year build timescale.
I note your statement regarding the cost of retrofit costing up to £20,000 but you do not clarify what the “retrofit” is nor the typical building concerned. Is it insulation only? Double Glazing? Solar with or without batteries? Ground or Air source heating? Secondary Glazing? Is the building listed? In a Conservation Area? Single story? Solid floor? Single skin?
It is a very complex subject and you should not be examining local candidates or expecting us to come up with solutions to questions that should be laid at the door of our local MP’s and our Government.
I suppose the simple answer would be-lobby Government for solutions and changes including using a Council and a local MP that cares.
Question 3 Lobby Government to change its policy, they are the ones blocking it!
I am predisposed to the use of Solar Power and, as Chair of Planning for Bridport plus being on the South and West Planning Committee and also the Strategic Planning Committee for Dorset Council, I have deliberated over many applications. Most I have been in favour of, some I have not. I am predisposed to the mixing of Wind and Solar generation where physically possible. The most suitable sites are those close to a National Grid connection point that has suitable infrastructure and capacity to take the power generated. So sites need to be carefully chosen until technology or infrastructure improves. Until then there has to be some control via the Planning Process.
We also have the issue of the required Battery Storage required to store the power from Solar and Wind generation short term for when it is needed. Battery Storage is in it’s infancy and there are many issues, not least in terms of mining the materials necessary but also concerns over the safety of the installations themselves.
There are many interesting articles on the dangers of use of Battery Storage, please see the following links.
Tesla ‘big battery’ fire fuels concerns over lithium risks (ft.com)
We have a long way to go in resolving just the issues I have mentioned above. The question is simple but the answers are complex.
Question 4 There are 3 questions here?
- As it stands, a Water Company only has to provide a sewer connection point. It can carry out hydraulic modeling and capacity calculations to check that the proposed development can be catered for in it’s current system. Local Councils are responsible for surface water drainage, Water companies for the sewage, so it is important to realise that a lot of surface water is introduced into the sewers due to out dated infrastructure and poor planning. New developments should not add surface water into sewers. The question of who should provide infrastructure to cope with additional sewage is easily answered:
As to where the funds for this currently comes, from-eventually it falls to the Bill payer. As to whether a Developer should pay towards or even the full cost of capacity improvements then this is not within the power or remit of local Councils or Councillors to implement. We can only Lobby our local MP and Government via Dorset Council.
- No I don’t believe the targets are sensible, they do not take into account regional or even local variations of need and type of housing or geographical issues such as proximity to employment or transport opportunities. That said there have to be some targets but the calculation method needs to be overhauled.
- Yes
Question 5 The effects are difficult to quantify and I certainly do not have the knowledge or ability to be an expert on this. If the effects cannot be quantified then they cannot be put into any order. All may be desirable but complex and come with their own issues..
Questions of my own that might help you to understand my lack of a specific answer to your question:
Firstly Which ones are achievable and realistic?.
- Are electric vehicles the answer? If this is proven then maybe, currently, they are. I am not totally convinced in the technology nor how we produce the electricity. And as for the future problem of dead batteries, should this be ignored?
Electric cars: What will happen to all the dead batteries? – BBC News
The National Grid is struggling to provide electricity to new developments and the inclusion of EV charging points is bringing it’s own added pressures.
As for the emissions savings I do not have the knowledge to research potential savings based on the number of cars on the road annually or the mileage they do or the ratio of electric to petrol/diesel/Gas powered.
- The minute you encourage travelling less then you introduce many social issues including affecting businesses that are based on commuting but in some instances this idea is perfectly reasonable. If Public Transport was improved and led to a more efficient and less polluting way of travelling then this would be a better interim solution. However we are already seeing problems with productivity and isolation of those working at home. Also how many people are we talking about? Length of journeys? Do they already walk or cycle to work? Use public transport? Impossible to quantify.
- A flat rate for Bus travel – yes if financially achievable in the budget that a council has to work to in an already struggling economy – unfortunately Dorset Council failed in it’s two recent bids for Government money to improve Rural Transport, specifically buses (Bus Back Better campaign). I have no idea on National figures or the effects this is likely to have, how many people are we guessing might use the bus if this was an option? The local buses are not sufficient or run at times people need or link up to provide a viable for of transport so this may have an effect if the other issues are addressed. Fix this first and then drop the price !.
- Replacing Council Cars (do you mean all vehicles or just cars?) with “modest” cars would be unlikely to have a massive impact but desirable anyway where practical. Again without having knowledge of the number of vehicles/ their age/ the emissions per vehicle or type then it is impossible to quantify. I suppose this information could be compiled but it would be difficult to rank it compared to the other measures you propose. Dorset Council already has a policy to replace vehicles with Electric (or any future green energy source).
Having served and gained experience as a Dorset and Town Councillor, it has become clear that apparently simple questions do not have simple answers and it is essential to look at the consequences of actions and decision making before coming to a balanced opinion.
Bridget Bolwell
Question 1: It would seem most sensible to improve insulation where possible to avoid wasting energy. This will vary depending on the individual circumstances and how far a property has already installed the options you list.
Air source heat pumps are most effective when powered by solar panels but they do not suit every application, I note that you do not include Ground Source heat pumps as an option, a perfectly viable option when installed during the build. Any of these 3 individually would be an improvement but better as a well designed package.
Minimise energy use through education etc. would be relatively cheap but this will only affect those who are prepared to be educated.
Question 2: Yes, we should demand building standards that exceed the national standard but only if they are realistic and achievable. The National Standards are laid down by Government and standards should be led by them. The Government is failing in implementing these “exceeded standards” themselves and leaving it to Local Councils it. It is “passing the buck” and could lead to a patchwork of housing standards across the country.
Does this mean that Local Councils will have to employ experts to decide what the standards should be? Developers may avoid certain areas to build in due to locally imposed high standards and then this may affect the ability to house our local people. There is a balance to be achieved, Councils should also take charge and build our own houses, then we would have some control in implementing build standards.
It is unavoidable, given the timescales between receiving planning permission and completion of large and even small scale developments that standards may change given the advances in knowledge, technology and materials. You refer to many developments being “substandard” before they are completed and standards being obsolete in the very near future. There has to be an understanding of the house building process, the scale of the proposed changes and where a particular build project has reached. before any comment can be made. If the changes affect approved designs then, as things stand, a developer cannot and should not be forced to implement a change to use future standards when they were not in force at the time of approval. Imagine houses already being approved and almost finished and then a change is proposed that would entail a complete rebuild.
However, if the changes are important but minor in terms of the build and can be implemented at little extra cost on a particular building depending on it’s build stage then this should be encouraged but I fear this would be impractical and difficult to manage. There has to be a delay in implementing changes.
I do believe, however, that contracts should somehow include the power to make developers include the ability to easily “retrofit” future changes , for instance cabling or pipework could be installed that will be required to comply with proposed new future standards. As things stand Contractors also have the option of having the viability of the development independently assessed and can often prove that certain conditions of the contract make the project unprofitable and so can contest the inclusion of Affordable Housing for instance. This might also apply to standards?
The idea may also be impractical on a large development with potentially a 10 year build timescale.
I am not sure where you obtained your figures for the retrofit estimate, surely it needs defining as to where these costs are? Is the building listed? In a Conservation Area? Single story? Solid floor? Single skin?
It is a very complex subject and you should be asking these questions our local MP’s and our Government.
I suppose the simple answer would be-lobby Government for solutions and changes including using a Council and a local MP that cares.
Question 3: As a member of the Green Liberal Democrats, I am of the opinion that locally generated Solar Power and wind power should be provided where practical on any future development. Solar arrays are growing in number but have to be located near a suitable Grid connection point. This would also apply to wind power generation so it would make complete sense to combine the two technologies on the same site where physically possible, but not in every area across the country, there has to be some control via the Planning Process.
We also have the associated problem of Battery Storage, which has to be provided to store the power from Solar and Wind generation short term for when it is needed. Battery Storage is in it’s infancy and there are many issues, not least in terms of mining the materials necessary but also concerns over the safety of the installations themselves.
There are many interesting articles on the dangers of use of Battery Storage, please see the following links.
Tesla ‘big battery’ fire fuels concerns over lithium risks (ft.com)
Question 4: As it stands, a Water Company only has to provide a sewer connection point. It can carry out hydraulic modeling and capacity calculations to check that the proposed development can be catered for in it’s current system. Local Councils are responsible for surface water drainage, Water companies for the sewage, so it is important to realise that a lot of surface water is introduced into the sewers due to out dated infrastructure and poor planning. New developments should not add surface water into sewers. The question of who should provide infrastructure to cope with additional sewage is easily answered:
As to where the funds for this currently comes from-eventually it falls to the Bill payer. As to whether a Developer should pay towards or even the full cost of capacity improvements then this is not within the power or remit of local Councils or Councillors to implement. Lobby your local MP and Government.
- No, I don’t believe the targets are sensible, they do not take into account regional or even local variations of need and type of housing or geographical issues such as proximity to employment or transport opportunities. That said there have to be some targets but the calculation method needs to be overhauled.
- Yes
Question 5: The effects are difficult to quantify and I certainly do not have the knowledge or ability to be an expert on this. If the effects cannot be quantified then they cannot be put into any order. All may be desirable but complex and come with their own issues.
- Are electric vehicles the answer? I am not totally convinced in the technology nor how we produce the electricity. And as for the future problem of dead batteries, should this be ignored?
Electric cars: What will happen to all the dead batteries? – BBC News
The National Grid is struggling to provide electricity to new developments and the inclusion of EV charging points is bringing it’s own added pressures.
As for the emissions savings I do not have any knowledge of this so I can’t measure it’s effectiveness against the other measures..
- The minute you encourage travelling less then you introduce many social issues but in some instances this idea is perfectly reasonable. However we are already seeing problems with productivity and isolation of those working at home. This again is impossible to judge against the other measures.
- A flat rate for Bus travel – yes, if financially achievable in the budget that a council has to work to in an already struggling economy – perhaps the Government would like to step in?
- Unfortunately Dorset Council were twice unsuccessful in obtaining any grant money for public transport so any financial implications of a proposal would need to be carefully examined and weighed in terms of benefits. I have no idea on National figures/the effects this is likely to have, how many people are we guessing might use the bus if this was an option? The local buses are not sufficient or run at times people need or link up to provide a viable for of transport so this may have an effect if the other issues are addressed. Fix this first and then drop the price !.
- Replacing Council Cars (do you mean all vehicles or just cars?) with “modest” cars would be unlikely to have a massive impact but desirable anyway where practical. Again without having knowledge of the number of vehicles/ their age/ the emissions per vehicle or type then it is impossible to quantify. I suppose this information could be compiled but it would be difficult to rank it compared to the other measures you propose. Dorset Council already have a policy to use electric vehicles as replacements when the time is due.