RE: Code for Sustainable Homes/Energy requirements & the Housing Standards - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Hi

I'm drafting some guidance following the press release. Code for Sustainable Homes has gone. There will be new building regs on 1st Oct with the national standards and there are some optional extras on access and water similar to code level 4. My understanding is that the optional extras can be conditioned if you have evidence they are required. I also believe that an equivalent to code level 4 can be conditioned until 1st Oct?

I'm also interested in this, following a meeting with a developer who claims that there are now "no Code assessors", so if we try and stick with Code 4 until 1 October, they won't be able to comply with the condition.  Our intention is to stick to current policy (Code 4) in the interim period, but I'm interested to know whether others feel that the developer has a point?

Our understanding is that we can continue to require Code 4 equivilent energy and water standards until the zero carbon home standard comes into force in (late) 2016. However ultimately, as a matter of law, the minsterial statement is only a material consideration - it does not change either adopted policy nor the NPPF. It is a question of whether it has sufficient weight to warrant a deviation from any policy requiring the Code. We've concluded that it will do.

In terms of how we do that, we've put together conditions which refer to Part L and the water efficiency calculator into a briefing note which will shortly be on our website at http://tinyurl.com/okx4ej5 or drop me an email at david.hayward@portsmouthcc.gov.uk and I'd be happy to send you a .doc copy.

Sorry to barge into this tread with a slightly different but related question.

I am confused about the situation regarding the new technical space standards and the optional access standards in the new Building Regs.

All I have read on these seems to indicate that in order to require either of these you need to justify need/consider viability and they should be underpinned by a local plan policy.

I expect there will be hardly any adopted plan policies which actually state that the authority will require the space standards to be met and similarly if you have to underpin the optional access BR standards does that mean you need an adopted policy in your plan stating that (in what circumstances) you will require either of these standards?

 

It seems odd that a set of technical space standards have been prepared which (I would have thought) mean that these are really the minimum acceptable space sizes for a dwelling and then you need a policy to require them? Surely they are NEEDED because the Government considers them to be the minimum standard to create a satisfactory living environment?

Anyway, in the interim I assume that you cannot require the space standards nor the access standards until you've got a policy? Gettiging an adopted policy would of course mean testing the NEED for the requirement through examination.

I'd be grateful for people's opinions on if I am interpreting this correctly. Also, if you are seeking either of these extra standards, would it be appropriate to require them on A PERCENTAGE of dwellings within a development. For example on the access standards could you have a policy which required say 30% of the dwellings to meet the higher optional standard?

Any views/suggestions welcomed!

 

Would be very interested in a PAS event on this (in the North if possible) - We're in the early stages of a DM DPD and understanding the new world is going to be critical

 

 

I would certainly like to understand the allowable solutions issue in more depth. Whilst the principle is clear, the practise is not.

On the one hand, energy efficiency is now going to be in the realm of building regs - which for the most part is a world of clear rules and standards;

On the other hand, in terms of what is paid, when it is paid, who makes sure that it is paid and what it is to be spent on, Government is doing its usual trick of citing localism and leaving LPAs to figure out the difficult questions (and then castigating them when the development industry doesn't like the results)