News
EPC rules still
being ‘flouted’
The number of commercial buildings failing to lodge an energy performance certificate (EPC) during their sale or rent remained high in February, with 61 per cent flouting the rules, according to an index of EPCs. The figure is just a three per cent improvement on January’s figures, despite the certificates being a legal requirement for more than a year. The monthly index is run by NES
and Building.co.uk, and monitors how many commercial buildings currently being marketed have a valid EPC. NES is now working with authorities such as East Sussex County Council (ESCC) to boost awareness. Paul Taylor of ESCC said: ‘The
legislation contains too many grey areas, like “no fixed heating or ability”. The fines are too low and trading standards are becoming increasingly intel-led – but, unfortunately, not many people complain about the lack of an EPC.’ The sample for February
includes 1,084 buildings taken from Cumbria, Buckinghamshire, East Sussex and Leicestershire, and includes properties that have a floor area in excess of 50 sq m and which have been on the market for at least six months.
Funding for
renewables
Thirty-three community-based organisations will share more than £610,000 for renewable energy technologies in the seventh round of the Community Sustainable Energy Programme (CSEP) capital grants scheme. Winning applications include village halls, community centres and schools. In addition, more than £672,000 has been awarded in project development grants, enabling almost 300 community organisations to undertake feasibility studies and decide if their buildings could benefit from renewable energy. CSEP is a three-year open
grants scheme funded by the Big Lottery Fund. It is designed to help community-based organisations in England reduce their energy bills and environmental impact.
www.communitysustainable.org.uk
16
CIBSE Journal April 2010
Government green planning statement ‘fails markedly’
n
The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) has dismissed
a government planning statement on energy as ‘not fit for purpose’. The professional body, which represents 22,000 planners, has given a robust response to the government’s consultation on a National Policy Statement for Energy, which will determine how plans for energy facilities are decided upon by the new Infrastructure Planning Commission. The government statement was presented as ‘a triple boost’ for councils tackling climate change, by updating planning rules, granting nearly £10m to improve green skills and backing the progress made by the second wave of eco-towns. It claimed the new policy statements on climate change, natural environment and coastal change would give councils a ‘green planning rulebook’. But the RTPI was scathing in its response. Matt Thomson, acting director for policy and partnerships,
said: ‘The draft national policy statement on energy is not fit for purpose. ‘It makes no attempt to translate
the national need for energy infrastructure into guidance on where such development should be located, and so provides no reassurance for potential investors or local communities. ‘We face a critical situation in providing the right framework to encourage investment into new energy facilities, particularly as the government has made strong commitments on reducing carbon emissions from energy. The current energy policy statement markedly fails in this respect.’ Meanwhile, the Conservatives
have proposed an overhaul of energy policy. The policy paper, Rebuilding Security, sets out 12 actions, including promoting nuclear and renewable power through streamlined planning, and a new ‘energy internet’ that puts consumers ‘in control’ of their energy usage.
l UK planning rules have been reformed to help save developers money when applying for more time to build new developments. The move will see businesses pay lower fees when extending planning permissions during the economic recovery, helping to save up to £69m a year and enabling developers to invest in new projects, according to the government.
See Legal column, page 32
Big ideas to take centre stage at CIBSE national conference
Every MP should personally take ownership of their constituency’s carbon cuts in order to equal or better the national CO2 target during their five years in office. This demand is among a
number of ‘big ideas’ proposed by CIBSE members to central government to help towards tackling the UK’s energy problems. Six ideas to lobby government
on energy issues have been shortlisted as part of CIBSE’s One Big Idea campaign, launched by president-elect Rob Manning. The winning idea will be chosen
at CIBSE national conference in April, at the British Museum (pictured), where delegates will vote for their preferred suggestion. If members vote for MPs to take ownership of their constituency’s carbon cuts, CIBSE will lobby ministers, and then support them by preparing a guide document.
Other ideas put forward include the government commissioning and publishing full post-occupancy evaluations for all construction or refurbishment carried out in the government estate since the introduction of the 2006 Part L of the Building Regulations.
The six shortlisted ideas:
• Make ‘Education for Building Energy Efficiency and Sustainability’ (eBEES) a
compulsory topic for children at both primary and secondary schools (possibly for inclusion in the National Curriculum). CIBSE could contribute local energy experts/mentors to schools and provide web pages and some simple coursework suggestions. This initiative will promote CIBSE as a leading institution, and building services engineering as an exciting career choice; • Introduce personal carbon allowances along with a carbon credit card to create a personal carbon trading scheme; • Tag business rates to asset ratings (CO2 production). Businesses would get a reduction in rates according to the amount of CO2 reduction. If a building has not yet been assessed, owners will have to pay a default tax, only getting a reduction when they implement recommendations
www.cibsejournal.com
Shutterstock
Shutterstock
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84