POSITION STATEMENT
MSDC 11 JUNE 2008
Climate Change
Mid Suffolk District Council has signed the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change
and has had ISO 14001 accreditation for its Environmental Management for ten years. Each
year it undergoes an external audit to ensure that as a Council, we are doing all we can to
promote good environmental practice and demonstrate leadership in the area of Climate
Change mitigation and adaptation.
(ISO14001 is an international standard, which follows a “Plan - Do - Check” model for
business improvement. It is sometimes referred to as an Environmental Management System
or EMS. The aim of ISO14001 is to reduce the environmental impact of the Council’s activities
and necessarily includes our Planning activities and policy-making.)
The council’s own CO2 and emissions measures are scrutinised by National Indicator (NI)
185 and 194. The NI handbook of definitions identifies the means of calculating how buildings
and activities can reduce their CO2 emissions. The aim of the indicator is to encourage Local
Authorities to demonstrate leadership in CO2 reduction.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/543055.pdf
The Housing Corporation imposes similarly stringent design requirements on its new build
programme and has adopted Code level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes as a minimum
standard for the 2008-11 National Affordable Home Programme.
http://www.housingcorp.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.14166
Mid Suffolk notes its contribution to the CO2 emissions in the region set out in the Local
and Regional Estimates of Carbon Emissions at DEFRAs web site
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/download/regionalrpt/localregionalco2emissions2005-rev200804.xls This reflects the District’s economic activity, its road
network (incl. A14) and levels of car ownership which is the highest per capita in rural Suffolk.
In core document E10 we find the CLG policy statement on building a greener future that
moves towards The Code for Sustainable Homes being made mandatory and the means of
assessment. However, there are currently house builders who are seeking to avoid this
responsibility. (Please see appendix A – Local Government News - May 2008).
Mid Suffolk has also had regard for the detailed guidance offered by the South East
Climate Change Partnership and the Sustainable Development Round Table for the East of
England.
http://www.london.gov.uk/climatechangepartnership/docs/adapting_to_climate_change.pdf
The ministerial statement reminds us of the real and immediate threat caused by climate
change and acceptance of its contents from all of the English regional climate change
partnerships.
What are we hoping to achieve:

The Code for Sustainable Homes across the District as a requirement due to the
scale of our identified emissions.

Some rural development in villages that would otherwise be refused development
opportunity – but not at any cost. (i.e. rural homes with a cost allotted to environmental gains
through sustainable construction)

Homes that compensate at source for their car dependency (car generated
emissions are only a third of the picture – the power generation and household emissions are
equally important)

Homes that are cheaper to run for the people that live in them

Homes that are less environmentally damaging as they approach zero carbon

Homes that “cost” as much as a brown field elsewhere (to counterbalance the
argument against dispersal - the homes will not be a cheap Greenfield option – the enhanced
building cost will help to overcome both environmental and rural poverty concerns while
counterbalancing the argument voiced by market towns and regional cities)
What are we hoping to prevent:

A rural glut of development that undermines Urban renaissance

Disruption of the rural housing markets solely to prop up the urban renaissance

Black holes with no development in rural areas that causes scarcity and rising
prices – “floor not a ceiling” bonus homes in rural areas.

Further prevarication in addressing Stern Report and the actions of others in
achieving climate change results. (Please see “Loophole allows developers to opt out of code
for eco homes”. - LGN May 2008)

Confusion in the planned approach
A straightforward approach to measurement:

The means of measuring the carbon reductions and other environmental gains are
already known. The Council will expect the developer to provide information as part of its
design statement

The means of costing environmental benefits into housing schemes are also
known

Set out in a supplement to development control policies document.

Development will not be stymied due to viability issues, as the Council will ask for
an open book approach to costing development proposals that need to have other
infrastructure costs assessed.

Each local authority may set its own agenda for apportioning S106 and other
infrastructure monies. The relative importance of this cost element will be weighed against
other infrastructure costs in the usual way
The Council’s stance:
In all new development within the approved settlement hierarchy the Council will require
Level 3 and above by timed stages. Policy CS3 would allow the counter balancing of CO2
generated by the rural car, by:
1.
individual property CO2 savings - from fully insulated property with reduced
emissions and energy saving measures
2.
savings in energy demand thus reducing CO2 from energy generation at its
source.
This offers CO2 “win-win” on all but car usage and will also facilitate other sustainable /
PPS7 rural economy benefits, such as:
3.
4.
5.
maintaining local services and bolstering population that use them
local economy PPS7 existing services and facilities maintained
keeping local people local to maintain a balanced community
In this light the opportunity could be extended to rural housing allocations made in the
smaller settlements that fall below the settlement hierarchy. In these outlying settlements
(which number nearly 80), the importance of sustainable building costs will be weighed against
other infrastructure costs. For some rural locations this may prove more important than other
S106 expectations such as public open space payments where open space and facilities are
already available in ample supply. Similarly, if local school numbers are dwindling (due to a
lack of younger families resident in a village) then education payments may not be justified to
enlarge existing facilities.
Development in these settlements would offer
6.
7.
8.
9.
Additional services delivered via undertakings / S106 agreement
Control over choice of house types and tenure
House prices stabilised through ensured flow
Rural homes in villages that need to maintain housing opportunities
The Council supports the content and aims of PPS1 Supplement on Climate Change but
will not repeat its contents in the Core Strategy. Nonetheless, paragraph 30 – 32 incl.
encourages Planning Authorities to support delivery of the national timetable for reducing
carbon emissions from domestic and non-domestic buildings. It offers local authorities the
opportunity to suggest local requirements for sustainable buildings and offers the opportunity
for planning authorities to anticipate levels of building sustainability in advance of those set out
nationally.
In these circumstances the Council have tried to achieve a strong stance against CO2 i.e. the general approach set out in the policy CS3. CS3 is meant to be a high level policy to
be amplified by the Development Control Policy DPD. We offer the policy with the express aim
of requiring change to our emissions because we are in the higher categories of polluter and
wish to make an appropriate commitment to change by offsetting our CO2 generally and in
remoter rural locations with stronger measures.
Appendix A – Local Government News - May 2008