Embodied carbon can't be ignored

At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to draw attention again to the issue of carbon embodied in a building at 'practical completion' ie before occupation. Building zero carbon houses or 'passive' houses that emit low levels of carbon over 60 year life is meaningless if most of the carbon is attributable to their construction during the next few years.  It is the very short term that carbon emissions must be reduced (ie the next ten years) for there to be a long term. A moratorium on cement, concrete and masonry while we find a way out of the climate emergency might look like a good idea in the carbon account but if millions of houses are then to be built out of wood, a crisis of another kind (loss of species?) might be hard to avoid.  Being honest about the carbon and material costs (let alone the implications for land take) should mean that we look at alternatives to 'building our way out of the housing crisis.'  (eg see previous posts on sub-divisions and custom splitting)

Given that the scale of embodied carbon is known to Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the National House Building Council, the UK Green Buildings Council and the Committee on Climate Change (among others), it is dispiriting to see how easily these voices can be ignored.  The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) are well aware of the contradiction, but have no policy to prevent this significant contribution due to the fact that there is "no agreed methodology"!! Since when did Government require agreement on methodology? A reticence reserved for matters of existential importance and high political inconvenience.  So when Homes England, or a Minister, or an Inspector or a Local Council are heard promoting or advocating for new building, they should all be challenged to say how this can be done in accordance with the IPCC maximum of 1.5 degree of warming budget?

Climate Emergency

   The Royal Town Planning institute have just published a booklet on Large Scale Housing with barely a mention about climate change and nothing about embodied carbon. Hanham Hall is featured as an example of a Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6 development  http://www.hta.co.uk/projects/hanham-hall but this was completed by Barratts in 2013 when there was a prospect of the Zero Carbon Homes standard being introduced in 2016, and does not appear to be an example that has been followed.  I responded by suggesting to the RTPI that it declares a "Climate Emergency" to bring it in line with the growing number of councils that have done so, and which employ Chartered Planners and determine planning applications.
    At  Futurebuild 2019 there was a 'meeting of  presidents' that included those from the RTPI and RICS, giving me a opportunity to suggest that planners should familiarise themselves with the Whole Life Carbon Assessments for the Built Environment RICS 2017. I am attracted to the possibility of the institutes recognising the "Climate Emergency" to create a level playing field and a measure of solidarity between the professionals working to adapt the built environment to a net zero economy.
   The question arises as to what is implied by declaring a "Climate Emergency".  The obvious point is that the 1.5 degree C target should be a material consideration in all plan-making and decision-taking.  Those working within councils could also propose the display of a 'carbon counter to counter carbon' in prominent location(s) within the district/city.  Many councils have museums run by the authority and the carbon story from 280ppm (ie the pre-industrial level) to 411ppm  (and rising) could be displayed ending with ideas from the visiting public about what a net zero carbon economy/society might look like.

Young people to the rescue

     For those who have not responded to the Royal Town Planning Institute consultation on its 'vision', 'mission' and principles, could I encourage you to do so (see URL in earlier Post).  The more I think about it and listen to those working with forest gardening and bioregioning and listen to discussions about garden cities and green belts, the greater I see the opportunity to persuade the RTPI to include the natural environment in its main purposes.  The consideration for and regeneration of the the natural environment would have to be translated into the professional code of conduct that should make Members of the Institute answerable to the public when relevant interests are the subject of plan-making or decision-taking.
     Another 'old chestnut' is the RICS 2017 report on Whole Life Carbon assessment for the Built Environment  claiming that 51% of the carbon emissions associated with a dwelling are embodied at practical completion (I assume this includes the services and infrastructure). I have sought rebuttals of this figure and been offered none. Although new dwellings will only be a small percentage of the whole (almost all existing dwellings will require a deep energy efficiency refit in the next ten years), the construction phase and carbon emissions arise in the very short term during which total emissions must fall dramatically, and what happens over the next 60 years is pretty well irrelevant unless the economy gets to net zero between 2030 and 2040.  In this context 1m houses in 5 years or 300,000 a year thereafter, will not be achieved within carbon budgets.
    Finally a word about young people (behaving like adults) and adults behaving like children.  When our politicians look again at issues other than comparing 'soft-Brexit' with 'no-Brexit', they will find it difficult to ignore the moral authority assumed by a generation of younger people making loud noises about the environment and their future.  I would hope that many if not all of these young people would engage with the land use planning system if the health of the bioregions in which they live were given priority.   Every day seems to show another council (planning authority) declaring a "climate emergency" that implies an acceptance of the trajectory of carbon emissions reductions consistent with the recommendations of the IPCC 2108 Report (which refers to urban planning) and the need to keep warming below 1.5 degreesC.

Rebelling and planning to avoid extinction

 Once the BBC had received enough complaints to acknowledge that closing five of London’s main bridges was worth a mention on the news (ironically finding protests at high fuel prices in France more interesting), Extinction Rebellion has had  few grounds for complaint about the coverage of its activities.  For those who have not picked up the messages, XR is a newly formed ‘organisation’ concentrating on non-violent direct action (NVDA) out of frustration that no alternative forms of action or lobbying appears to be proportionate to the urgency of the climate crisis [ie the need to reduce emissions so that global temperatures rise by no more than 1.5degrees from 1992 levels – over 1 degree of which has already occurred, and current pledges are aimed at over 3 degrees].  The scale of the challenge can be illustrated by relying on the assumption that 350parts of carbon per million (ppm) equates to the once assumed to be safe level of warming of 2 degrees warming.   

There are currently over 400ppm and, even if the IPCC recommendation to start to be reaching zero emissions by about 2032 were achieved, the level of carbon would be well over 450ppm and possibly 500ppm.  It is starting to become very clear that some form of untried and untested carbon capture and negative carbon technologies will be required to return to the level below the 350ppm, that equates to 1.5degrees of warming.

Despite some reluctance to engage in anything so mainstream and inactive as land use planning, a local branch of XR has seen the sense in making representations on a local development plan, given that about half of future emissions could be eliminated were the necessary policies put in place (and subsequently applied/enforced). If XR can do it, there should be more people explaining to local councils and inspectors that development plans that would not be consistent with 1.5 degrees of warming, as recommended by the IPCC, could not possibly be found to be  ‘sound’. Only Plans that would achieve ‘sustainable development’; creating a future where all future generations can meet their needs can be sound. Planning for a future with any more than 350ppm of carbon in the atmosphere would amount to Mutually Assured Destruction.  Approaching Holocaust Memorial Day (27 January) it is worth considering that on its current course, climate change threatens to be no less lethal than the previous and still existing methods of mass destruction.

The planning profession

There is a survey being carried out by the RTPI into its corporate strategy 2020 to 2030.   https://www.rtpi.org.uk/briefing-room/news-releases/2018/december/rtpi-opens-public-consultation-to-shape-its-future/?dm_i=1L61,60AFR,RPMAGE,NJRGE,1

There are two points that I believe need to be pointed out to the Institute.

1.     The RTPI has and seeks to continue to place people above (and often at the expense of) the environment. This applies to both biodiversity and to climate change.  Given the reference period of 2020 to 2030, which is the decade within which there must be a step change in the carbon emissions arising from the development and use of land and buildings, the credibility of the Institute and the profession will be damaged if this is not mentioned and regarded as a guiding principle of the land use planning process.

2.     Planning is the profession where there is most often a conflict of interest between the interest of the planner as an employee and as an adviser.  The RTPI should be vigilant in enforcing its code of professional practice to protect planners from the influence of their council or developer employers.  It is the tendency to put employer interest above professional integrity that has so damaged the reputation of the profession in the eyes of the public.

Please respond by 17 March and spread the URL around.

A proper analysis of the housing shortage

I have no hesitation in recommending the report from Residential Analysts which explains why the ‘housing crisis’ should be seen as many different problems affecting all parts of the country in different ways.

http://resi-analysts.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/A-Housing-Crisis-2018-10-15-v3.pdf?dm_i=1MBJ,5ZV5C,RM1CTX,NHXDD,1

The question does arise as to why local authorities have bought into the relatively crude analysis on which the Strategic Housing Market assessments have been prepared and why the DHCLG has not sought to emphasise the need for local responses to housing needs, based on the figures reproduced in the RA report?

One interesting figure is the 9million ‘spare’ bedrooms. This is the equivalent of about 4.5million two bedroomed dwellings.  Taking the Government estimate of demand at 300,000 new dwellings per year (and average household size of about 2.6), there is potential for about 15 years supply without any new building.  It would be seriously delusional to expect all this space to be magically available in the places (ie where there are jobs) and in the form that could be used ( eg as rented rooms or conversions into flats).  However, the carbon cost of new building (50% being embodied at substantial completion and before occupation), the prevalence of fuel poverty, and the need for the housing sector to be net carbon zero by about 2030 points to residential sub-divisions (including custom-splitting) as a serious if not the main contender.

Zero carbon homes are exceptional

For those unfamiliar with the way in which appeals against refusals (or onerous conditions) are handled a page from the Planning Inspectorate web site can be found here.
https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3202720&CoID=0
This appeal is interesting for a number of reasons.  A net zero carbon house is being allowed in a location proscribed by policies in both local and neighbourhood plans.  The justification for granting permission is firstly the 'tilted balance' and expression used by the supreme court when considering the effect of para 11 in the 2018 National Planning Policy Framework where the district council has failed to provide a 5 year housing land supply rendering the development plan as 'out of date' and carrying less weight. Secondly the inspector found the zero carbon design to be 'exceptional'. Although the inspector did not say so, this is the term used at para 79(e) of the NPPF that can justify the building of an 'isolated home in the countryside'. It may be that in this case the location was not 'isolated 'in the normal use of the word and the zero carbon design was just an 'other material consideration' to weigh against the policies in the development plan. 
It is important to remember that planning decisions do not create 'precedents' in a legal sense.  However, inspectors stand in the shoes of the Secretary of State (for Housing, Communities and Local Government) and decision letters can reasonably be cited in support of similar proposals. The Courts have ruled that consistency in decision-making is a material consideration and local planning authorities and inspectors should provide adequate reasons why apparently similar cases are being treated differently.
The lesson for those thinking of building or commissioning a new zero carbon home is that the absence of a 5 year land supply represents an opportunity to build in both isolated (citing NPPF para 79(e)) and in less isolated (see above) locations as a material consideration to further tilt the balance against a restrictive but  out-of-date development plan. Clearly a zero carbon home will only be 'exceptional' while the house building industry continues to supply sub-standard dwellings.