Proceeding contribution from Andrew Dismore (Labour) in the House of Commons on Friday, 9 May 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Planning and Energy Bill.
Planning and Energy Bill
My hon. Friend makes that remark, but one can hardly criticise the municipal fathers of 100-odd years ago for not having foresight about what might happen through climate change because of the use of coal-fired power stations. Unfortunately, we now know what the consequences were. My hon. Friend is right. We need to think about whether local authorities can take the initiative in building their own microgenerating power stations, whether they use wind turbines or some other method. New clause 7 tries to square the circle with clause 1, because it is open to question whether somebody who has already set up a microgeneration system would be able to provide enough power to fuel another construction. I have some problems with the way in which clause 1 is framed, and new clause 7 is an attempt to resolve those problems. New clause 8 is probably the most important in the group. It tries to get to the bottom of what we are talking about. It addresses the costs of what the Bill will expect people to do. The issue is not the cost to the local authority, but the cost that a local authority will impose on new developments in its area. If new developments are to be required to use renewable or low-carbon sources, or to generate their own electricity, a price tag will be attached. Likewise, if they have to comply with energy efficiency standards, on insulation or anything else, that also has a price tag attached. Especially in the context of domestic developments, that price could have an impact on the provision of affordable housing in a local authority area. If we require developers to do x, y or z, over and above the ordinary building regulations or planning requirements, they may say that they will not include the 50 per cent. of affordable homes required under other planning policies, because that would no longer be cost-effective and they could not make sufficient profit. Or developers might argue for a relaxation of the threshold of number of properties before the 50 per cent. rule kicked in. That assumes that we will still have the 50 per cent. rule in London, as the newly elected Mayor has made a commitment to abolish it. My concern in new clause 8 is the impact of the Bill on housing supply, locally and city-wide, and on Government targets. If we make development too expensive, developers will not build new houses. Solar power, for example, can cost at least 10 times as much as power from conventional sources and is relatively inefficient, as has been found even in Australia, the land of sunshine. More generally, renewable power costs are two to three times those of conventional sources, which can put them beyond economic viability. The cost of an energy-efficient home can be between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. more. It may be cheaper in the long run, but a £7,800 heat pump will take 15 years to pay for itself, and solar panels that cost £4,500 will take 37 years. Built from scratch, a zero-carbon home can cost some £30,000 more than a normal house, based on current technology prices.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 475 c993-4
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Conservation Construction Climate change Energy Insulation Heating Planning permission Planning Public participation Microgeneration Standards Renewable energy Carbon emissions
- Legislation
- Planning and Energy Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 01:30:58 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_470759
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_470759
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_470759