<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <title>10% renewables policy - allowing fabric first instead?</title>
  <link rel="self" href="https://khub.net/c/message_boards/find_thread?p_l_id=53683759&amp;threadId=19775287" />
  <subtitle>10% renewables policy - allowing fabric first instead?</subtitle>
  <id>https://khub.net/c/message_boards/find_thread?p_l_id=53683759&amp;threadId=19775287</id>
  <updated>2026-05-19T19:22:08Z</updated>
  <dc:date>2026-05-19T19:22:08Z</dc:date>
  <entry>
    <title>10% renewables policy - allowing fabric first instead?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://khub.net/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=19775286" />
    <author>
      <name>Former Member</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://khub.net/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=19775286</id>
    <updated>2016-04-27T11:46:18Z</updated>
    <published>2016-04-27T11:46:18Z</published>
    <summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Hi all,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;We have a policy which requires 10% of a development's predicted energy needs to be met from renewabe/low carbon sources unless it is not viable or feasible to do so. &amp;nbsp;However, this is increasingly being challenged by developers who would prefer to take a fabric first approach. &amp;nbsp; So far we have resisted this, but I wondered whether others have been more flexible? &amp;nbsp;And if so, how does this fit with the Housing Standards Review/NPPF, and what evidence do you ask for in terms of comparing the benefits against a 10% energy approach?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Many thanks in advance for any help,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Emma&lt;/p&gt;</summary>
    <dc:creator>Former Member</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2016-04-27T11:46:18Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
</feed>
