Development Management Policies, Site Allocations & Finsbury

Development Management Policies, Site Allocations & Finsbury Local Plan

Topic Paper: Energy and Environmental Standards

August 2012

Energy and Environmental Standards Topic Paper. Islington Council 1

Contents

Chapter Page

1. Introduction 2

2. DM40 – Sustainable Design and Construction 2

3. DM41 – Energy efficiency and carbon reduction in minor schemes 5

4. DM42 - Decentralised energy networks 10

5. DM43 - Sustainable design standards 12

6. DM44 – Heating and cooling 15

7. Site Allocations and the Finsbury Local Plan 16

8. Bibliography 19


1. Introduction

1.1. This topic paper forms a detailed justification of the soundness of the five policies in Chapter 7 (Energy and Environmental Standards) of the Development Management Policies, in accordance with the four tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It also provides a brief commentary on energy and environmental policies in the Site Allocations and Finsbury Local Plan (section 7).

1.2. The topic paper for policy CS10 of the Core Strategy (http://www.islington.gov.uk/publicrecords/documents/Environment/Pdf/ldf_pack/cs_submission_docs/Sustainable_Design_topic_paper.pdf), which was produced for the Independent Examination of the Core Strategy,established a significant need for robust sustainable design policies, due to higher-tier policy requirements and a quantified need to mitigate the impacts of climate change and to address a range of broader sustainability issues. As new developments will contribute to climate change and other sustainability issues such as water resource scarcity, Policy CS10 requires these impacts to be appropriately mitigated.

1.3. The Core Strategy was adopted in February 2011. Development Management Policies relating to sustainability issues supplement and implement the overarching Core Strategy policy. Further guidance on complying with these policies is provided in the draft Environmental Design SPD (www.islington.gov.uk/environmentaldesign).

2. DM40 – Sustainable Design and Construction

2.1. This policy sets out information requirements for different application types, including the need to provide a ‘Green Performance Plan’. The focus here is on parts C to E of policy DM40 which set out specific requirements for applications. Parts A, B and F are considered to be relatively self explanatory and to be justified by the NPPF’s requirements for LPAs to “support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate” (para 17) and “adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change” (para 94).

Parts C and D - information requirements for different application types

2.2. The London Plan 2011 (policy 5.3) requires development proposals to demonstrate that sustainable design standards are integral to the proposal; major developments are required to demonstrate within a design and access statement how they meet the minimum standards outlined in the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance. Parts B and C of policy DM40 build on these requirements, setting out specific information requirements for different types of development (with detailed guidance on content provided in the Environmental Design SPD).


2.3. Based on the council’s ongoing experience of evaluating the sustainable design aspects of development proposals, provision of detailed guidance about information requirements to applicants is of utmost importance; it enables developers to be clear about what we need to see at planning application stage in order to fully assess policy compliance, thereby avoiding delays when the details provided are incomplete or more technical work is required.

2.4. At the Direction of Travel stage of plan development some developers raised concerns about the practicalities of implementing elements of this policy, particularly with regard to Green Performance Plans. This led to a review of the policy to ensure implementation is reasonable and achievable, including development of detailed guidance on Green Performance Plans (working with experts in building monitoring) as part of the Environmental Design SPD.

2.5. At Proposed Submission stage Derwent London Plc objected to the requirement for applications for extensions of 100sqm or greater to be accompanied by a Sustainable Design and Construction Statement. They argued that setting the threshold at this level might depress and discourage development and could be inconsistent with the desire to maximise sites; they recommended a threshold of 500sqm instead. However, extensions of 100sqm or greater are considered to raise potentially significant sustainable design issues - including with respect to energy efficiency, water efficiency, biodiversity impacts and climate change adaptation; this is especially so when cumulative impacts are considered. Moreover, as set out in the Environmental Design SPD, the information requirements for this form of development are relatively simple and it is therefore very unlikely that this requirement would depress and discourage development. Therefore the 100sqm or greater threshold for extensions is considered to be justified.

2.6. The above approach is in accordance with the NPPF which recognises that “The right information is crucial to good decision-making” (para 192) and also states that supplementary planning documents should be used where they can help applicants make successful applications (para 153). The hierarchical information requirements of this policy – with most information required for majors, less for new build minors, less still for large extensions and flexibility for other types of scheme as appropriate –are also in accordance with paragraph 193 of the NPPF which states that LPAs’ information requirements for applications “should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development proposals”.

Part E - Green Performance Plans

2.7. Part D of the policy requires major developments to submit a Green Performance Plan (GPP) detailing measurable outputs for the occupied building and arrangements for monitoring the progress of the plan over the first years of occupancy. This policy is important because numerous


surveys of recently completed buildings have revealed substantial gaps between client and design expectations and delivered performance, especially energy performance (e.g. Carbon Trust, 20111; Zero Carbon Hub, 20102, www.carbonbuzz.org, the PROBE studies: www.usablebuildings.co.uk/). Its implementation will demonstrate how to close this performance gap and deliver on national, regional and local climate change mitigation and adaptation targets (including the Council’s target to reduce the borough’s CO2 emissions by 40% by 2020/21 relative to 2005/06 levels3).

2.8. The requirement for a GPP reflects increasing national recognition of the importance of post occupancy monitoring of building performance. For example, it is now proposed that the Building Regulations ‘zero carbon’ compliance in 2016 will be judged based on measured ‘as built’ performance rather than modelled performance/design intent, as happens currently. The recently updated BREEAM 2011 standard for sustainable buildings offers credits to developers making a commitment to post occupancy monitoring (although this is not mandatory).

2.9. The GPP approach adopted by Islington is based on the model provided by the Green Travel Plan, a tool widely applied through planning policy to ensure the implementation of a range of behavioural and physical initiatives by building occupiers. GPPs are relevant to planning because they can ensure delivery of climate change mitigation and adaptation objectives in the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the London Plan 2011 (Policy 5.1) and Islington’s Core Strategy, including by monitoring the following outcomes:

1. reductions in actual energy usage (rather than just modelled performance);2. reductions in actual CO2 emissions (rather than just modelled performance);3. reductions in actual water usage (rather than just modelled performance);4. depending on the scope of the plan, internal overheating, rainwater harvesting, etc.

2.10. The approach accords with Policy 5.1 (part B) of the London Plan2011 which states that: “Within LDFs boroughs should develop detailed policies and proposals that promote and are consistent with the achievement of the Mayor’s strategic carbon dioxide emissions reduction target for London.” The GLA supported this policy: “The proposal to monitor the built performance of developments is welcomed” (Direction of Travel consultation response). In response to consultation on the draft

1 Carbon Trust, July 2011. Closing the gap: Lessons learned on realising the potential of low carbon building design.2 Zero Carbon Hub. August 2010. Carbon compliance for tomorrow’s new homes. A review of the modelling tools and assumptions. Topic 4: Closing the gap between designed and built performance.3 LBI, June 2011. 40% carbon reduction by 2020. Report of the regeneration and employment review committee. www.islington.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=9649&intSectionID=6&intSubSectionID=2


Environmental Design SPD, which provides detailed guidance on green performance plans, Levitt Bernstein architects also voiced their support for the green performance plan policy requirement.

2.11. The NPPF states that “Local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change” (para 94). It also states that planning should, amongst other things, “support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate” (para 17).

2.12. Full details of the information to be provided in a GPP are provided in the draft Environmental Design SPD (see chapter 8 and appendix 3). The policy is linked to Policy CS10 (part G) of the Core Strategy which requires that all developments be designed and managed to promote sustainability through their ongoing operation.

2.13. It is considered that the preparation and submission of GPPs is technically feasible (suggested indicators and data sources are set out in chapter 8 of the draft Environmental Design SPD) and financially viable (collection of meter readings and analysis of data will not be labour or resource intensive and should help to reduce energy and other operational costs and maximise builder user satisfaction). Like Green Travel Plans, GPPs will be secured via s106 agreement; they will be reviewed by the Council’s Sustainability Officer in Planning and/or Energy Officer.

3. DM41 – Energy efficiency and carbon reduction in minor schemes

3.1. This policy sets outs carbon targets for minor schemes as well as arrangements for carbon offsetting and consequential improvements.

Part A – energy efficiency

3.2. Part A requires minor schemes to achieve best practice energy efficiency standards; these are set out in the Environmental Design SPD4. An overarching justification for minimising energy demand and carbon emissions is set out in chapter 2 of the Environmental Design SPD. With regard to the specific emphasis here on energy efficiency, an emphasis on a ‘fabric first’ approach is justified because maximising the insulation levels and air tightness of the building fabric is generally the most simple and cost effective way to minimise energy consumption and CO2 emissions from buildings; by maximising energy efficiency the demand for energy is minimised and the need to generate energy is reduced. Moreover, it is also the most robust approach over time as the building fabric is passive and relatively long-lived, whilst add-on renewables are likely to have shorter effective life spans and will require maintenance to

4 This is based on guidance from the Energy Saving Trust on the u-values and air permeability levels needed to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.


ensure they perform to their full potential. This requirement will also help to future-proof buildings by making them less likely to require difficult and expensive fabric refurbishment upgrades at a later date5.

3.3. The focus on maximising energy efficiency as a first step is also consistent with the draft changes to Part L of the Building Regulations (consulted on in early 20126) which propose introducing a minimum ‘Fabric Energy Efficiency Standard’ (FEES); and with policy 5.2 of the London Plan 2011 which identifies ‘being lean: using less energy’ as the first step in the energy hierarchy.

3.4. The NPPF states that planning should, amongst other things, “support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate” (para 17); “To support the move to a low carbon future, local planning authorities should: plan for new development in… ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions…” (para 95). The policy is therefore consistent with the NPPF.

3.5. The evidence base study ‘Zero Carbon Development Phase 2’ indicated that designing with high levels of energy efficiency is a cost effective route to minimising carbon emissions and that it is technically feasible and financially viable to build to the good practice standards specified in the draft Environmental Design SPD. As the industry gains experience in building to higher energy efficiency standards in response to escalating building regulation and planning requirements, the ability to cost effectively deliver higher energy efficiency standards is predicted to continue to improve.

Part B – carbon target for new build minor residential developments

3.6. Part B establishes an onsite CO2 reduction target for minor new-build residential developments. This is equivalent to the standard required to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. An overarching justification for minimising energy demand and carbon emissions is set out in chapter 2 of the Environmental Design SPD. This policy is needed because dwellings are responsible for significant levels of the UK’s carbon emissions (e.g. 25% of UK CO2 emissions in 2009) and substantialnumbers of minor residential units are likely to be built in Islington over the plan period of 15-20 years (in the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12 planning permission was granted to minor residential schemes providing over 700 residential units each year).

3.7. This policy is linked to Policy CS10 (part A) of the Core Strategywhich requires all development to demonstrate that it has minimised on-site CO2 emissions and states that “Further detail around these [CO2]

5 Defining a fabric energy efficiency standard for zero carbon homes. Task group recommendations November 2009. Zero carbon hub.6

www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/buildingregulations/buildingregulationschanges/


targets, including requirements for minor schemes will be set out in the Development Management Policies”.

3.8. The policy accords with Policy 5.1 (part B) of the London Plan 2011 which states that: “Within LDFs boroughs should develop detailed policies and proposals that promote and are consistent with the achievement of the Mayor’s strategic carbon dioxide emissions reduction target for London.”

3.9. The carbon target specified is equivalent to the standard required to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. This approach is therefore in accordance with the NPPF which states that “when setting any local requirement for a building’s sustainability, do so in a way consistent with the Government’s zero carbon buildings policy and adopt nationally described standards” (para 95).

3.10. This policy requirement is supported by the evidence base7 which indicates that this level of performance is feasible and viable on minor residential developments; this is underlined by the fact that we already condition achievement of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 on most minor new build schemes.

3.11. As the carbon target is equivalent to the standard required to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4, if a scheme commits to achieving this standard in accordance with policy DM43 no additional information will be required making policy compliance straightforward.

Part C – carbon offsetting

3.12. Part C refers to carbon offsetting requirements for minor new-build developments. The carbon price and further details are set out in the Environmental Design SPD. The policy is linked to Policy CS10 (part A) of the Core Strategy which requires development to offset all remaining CO2 emissions (after meeting onsite targets) associated with a building through a financial contribution towards measures which reduce CO2 emissions from the existing building stock.

3.13. This policy is consistent with the NPPF (para 95) which states that: “To support the move to a low carbon future, local planning authorities should… actively support energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings”. It is also consistent with the broader call to “support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate” (para 17).

3.14. Islington Council has an Energy Team possessing extensive experience of identifying and delivering a range of energy efficiency and carbon reduction projects and services. The carbon offset price has been consulted upon in the Environmental Design SPD and the council is already putting in place arrangements with the Energy Team (e.g. list of

7 Promoting zero carbon development phase 2. AECOM/Davis Langdon. November 2010.


local carbon reduction projects including projected CO2 savings and costs) to ensure that we are in a position to implement carbon offsetting for both major and minor developments as soon as the Development Management Policies DPD and Environmental Design SPD have been adopted.

3.15. The evidence base study ‘Zero Carbon Development Phase 28’ tested the viability of a carbon offset cost of £920 per tonne of carbon for minor schemes alongside different regulated CO2 reduction targets and BREEAM/Code for Sustainable Homes requirements. A range of case studies were selected, based on actual planning applications for minor developments in Islington, to be representative of the Islington context by covering a range of use types and scales. For each case study the technical feasibility of achieving the targets was tested (be testing different combinations of energy efficiency measures and low and zero carbon technologies within the constraints imposed by the site) as well as the financial viability (using the residual profit valuation, with an acceptable profit defined as 17-20% of building costs9; costs for carbon offsetting and extra costs associated with achieving non-energy credits for Echomes Excellent and Code Level 4 were included; full details of the cost assumptions are set out in Appendix 3 of the report; the full cost viability results are in Appendix 8).

3.16. The study found that, for minor new build residential developments,the combined requirements of a carbon offset policy (based on a cost of £920 per tonne of CO2), an onsite reduction target of 25% relative to Building Regulations Part L 2010 (Policy DM41 A) and a requirement to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 would not generally adversely affect the viability of minor developments in Islington.

3.17. The draft Environmental Design SPD proposes a simplified flat rate carbon offset cost for different types of minor developments (figures derived from evidence base study, see below):

Houses - £1500 per house Flats - £1000 per flat Office - £100 per square metre of office space

3.18. These figures are based on cost data drawn from the case studies in the above mentioned study, based on the offset cost of £920 per tonne of total CO2 emissions (regulated and unregulated). However, in order to simplify the offsetting approach for minor schemes the costs in the SPD are based on regulated CO2 emissions only, not total CO2 emissions (which minor schemes are not required to calculate); therefore the chosen

8 Promoting zero carbon development phase 2. AECOM/Davis Langdon. November 2010.9 In accordance with the NPPF which states that the costs of any requirements should provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.


offset costs are significantly lower10 than those indicated to be viable by the evidence base study, allowing increased room for manoeuvre. Also offset payments will only be required for houses, flats and offices, the types of development that tend to predominate in Islington.

Part D – consequential improvements

3.19. An overarching justification for minimising energy demand and carbon emissions is set out in chapter 2 of the draft Environmental Design SPD. A justification for this element of policy DM41 is provided in the supporting text to the policy.

3.20. This policy is consistent with the NPPF (para 95) which states that: “To support the move to a low carbon future, local planning authorities should… actively support energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings”. It is also consistent with the broader call to “support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate” (para 17).

3.21. This policy seeks to ‘encourage’ the implementation of simple cost-effective energy efficiency measures; it does not set specific requirements. Therefore the policy is flexible and the aims will be delivered to the extent that householders choose to follow the guidance on suitable measures provided in the draft Environmental Design SPD. The introduction of the Government’s Green Deal11 - delivering energy efficient improvements at no upfront cost with repayments made through savings on energy bills - may further encourage adoption of such measures.

Consultation responses on DM41

3.22. No objections to this policy were received at Direction of Travel stage; however, some representations were received at Proposed Submission and pre-submission stages objecting to the policy approach.

3.23. Respondents mainly objected to the potential cost implications of higher environmental standards, considering the policy to be too prescriptive and proposing financial viability considerations to be given greater weight. In response to these, some amendments have been made prior to the submission of the DM Policies (for example, removing the 47% target on the basis that minor schemes may struggle to achieve this standard of performance in 2013 (the evidence base study indicated that a 47% CO2 reduction is technically feasible now but comes at a cost; while costs are projected to fall over time 2013 is very close). However, it

10 For residential schemes regulated emissions are assumed to be 50% of total emissions (Update of Islington Core Strategy Policy Targets, Mott MacDonald Fulcrum, January 2011). For office schemes regulated emissions are assumed to be 70% of total emissions (Guidance on the design and construction of sustainable, low carbon office buildings, Target Zero, January 2012 - www.targetzero.info/).11 For details of the Green Deal see the Department for Energy & Climate Change website: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/green_deal/green_deal.aspx


is considered essential to the soundness of the plan to improve the environmental performance of development in Islington, consistent with the objectives of the NPPF and London Plan. As such, a 25% CO2 reduction on minor new build residential schemes will be secured by conditioning Code level 4; and schemes will continue to be required to achieve higher carbon reductions in 2016. This approach is considered reasonable and justified.

4. DM42 - Decentralised energy networks

4.1.This policy sets outs requirements relating to connection to decentralised energy networks and the development of and/or connection to shared heat networks linking neighbouring developments and/or existing buildings.

4.2. Islington’s dense urban environment, with high concentrations of heat loads, makes it particularly suitable for decentralised energy (DE) networks12 which use Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems to supply heat and electricity more efficiently than traditional power production. Islington has the highest population density in the UK (Census 2011) and the 3rd highest employment density13. The expansion of current networks and establishment of new ones therefore offers the potential for very significant carbon dioxide reductions across Islington14, as well as opportunities to reduce fuel poverty15. This policy will therefore positively contribute to meeting objectively assessed infrastructure requirements (for DE), in accordance with the NPPF’s emphasis on being positively prepared.

4.3.Delivery of DE networks is strongly supported by the London Plan. Policy 5.5 of the London Plan 2011 states that “The Mayor expects 25 per cent of the heat and power used in London to be generated through the use of localised decentralised energy systems by 2025. In order to achieve this target the Mayor prioritises the development of decentralised heating and cooling networks at the development and area wide levels”. With regard to LDF preparation the policy states that “Within LDFs boroughs should develop policies and proposals to identify and establish decentralised energy network opportunities”, including by requiring developments to prioritise connection to existing or planned decentralised energy networks where feasible.

12 Decentralised energy generation is a series of local systems generating heat and power, at or near the point of use, connected to local distribution networks.13 Islington Infrastructure Delivery Plan, October 2009, Colin Buchanan, Capita Symonds and Professor Morphet.14 The Borough-wide Decentralised Energy Strategy indicates that if all the local heat clusters identified were supplied with heat from gas CHP engines a total CO2 saving of 28,305 tonnes per year could be achieved.15 Research for the council by Ernst & Young indicated that proposals for CHP powered DE networks in Islington would have a beneficial impact on the level of heat charges for both residents and leisure sites.


4.4.Part D of Policy DM42 accords with the approach advocated in Policy 5.6 of the London Plan which requires development proposals to evaluate the feasibility of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems, and where a new CHP system is appropriate also examine opportunities to extend the system beyond the site boundary to adjacent sites.

4.5.The policy is linked to Policy CS10 (part A) of the Core Strategy which states that the council will work with partners to promote and develop DE networks and that “All development will be required to contribute to the development of DE networks, including by connecting to such networks where these exist within the proximity of the development”.

4.6.At Direction of Travel stage some developers suggested that the requirement to connect to DE network should be more flexible. The policy was reviewed in light of these comments, however technical feasibility and financial viability are already covered in the supporting text to the policy and the policy itself is worded flexibly therefore no change was considered necessary.

4.7.Respondents at Proposed Submission stage mainly objected for the same reasons - a perceived lack of flexibility of the policy, in particular with regard to financial viability and technical feasibility. However, as highlighted above, technical feasibility and financial viability are already covered in the supporting text to the policy and the policy itself is worded flexibly (e.g. references to feasibility assessment and what is “reasonably possible”), therefore no change was considered necessary for the submission document.

4.8.The NPPF states that planning should, amongst other things, “support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate” (para 17). It also makes two specific references to decentralised energy: “In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should

expect new development to comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local requirements for decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable” (para 96)

LPAs should “identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co-locating potential heat customers and suppliers” (para 97); the map of the Bunhill energy network provided in the draft Environmental Design SPD identifies the current opportunities for DE network connection.

4.9. Implementation of the Bunhill heat network is already under way; an updated map of this network is provided in the Finsbury Local Plan and in the draft Environmental Design SPD (see also section 7 of this paper). The Council has developed a detailed Borough Wide DE Strategy16 which

16 Borough-wide Decentralised Energy Strategy. Parsons Brinkerhoff, April 2010.


sets out a strategic framework for deployment of decentralised energy across the borough; implementation is being progressed by the council’sDecentralised Energy Project Manager. Data from Islington has been added to the London Heat Map developed by the LDA’s decentralised energy team and the council is currently working with the GLA’s Decentralised Energy Project Delivery Unit to develop key opportunities in the borough and in neighbouring Hackney in partnership with Hackney Council.

4.10. This planning policy will facilitate further DE network development. The policy is worded flexibly to take into account feasibility and the supporting text explains what factors should be considered within a feasibility assessment, with specification consideration also given to financial viability (para 7.12).

5. DM43 – Sustainable design standards

5.1.This policy sets outs requirements for new development relating to two widely recognised sustainable design frameworks, the Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH) and Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM).

5.2.The policy is linked to Policy CS10 (part B) of the Core Strategy which requires all development to achieve the highest feasible level of a nationally recognised sustainable building standard. It states that “Target levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes and Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) will be set out in the Development Management Policies”. This policy sets out the levels required.

5.3.The policy is also linked to: Part C of Policy CS10 which requires all development to demonstrate

that it meets best practice water efficiency targets (part G of policy DM43 sets out requirements for non-residential schemes; policy CS10 of the Core Strategy has already established a water efficiency target for residential schemes).

Part F of Policy CS10 which requires all development to minimise the impact of materials and to take all possible measures to minimise the impact of construction on the environment, including by minimising construction waste (Policy DM43 includes specific requirements on materials, waste and construction impacts in parts E and F).

5.4.The Zero Carbon Phase 2 evidence base study17 informed this policy –further details of this are provided in the section on deliverability below.

5.5.The draft Environmental Design SPD provides further justification of this policy’s focus on CfSH and BREEAM (section 3); water efficiency (section



4); and the focus on sustainable materials, waste and construction impacts (section 7). The 10% target in part E of the policy is based on the Waste and Resources Action Programme's (WRAP, www.wrap.org.uk) suggestion that delivering 10% recycled content by value for a project is widely achievable. WRAP provide a 'Net Waste Tool’ which enables thepercentage of recycled content to be determined.

5.6.At Direction of Travel stage some developers raised concerns about the practicalities of implementing elements of this policy, particularly with regard to sustainable materials; others sought clarity on Building Regulations and on the BREEAM standards which will be used given that these will change over the life of the plan This led to a review of the policy to ensure implementation is reasonable and achievable, including development of detailed guidance on these issues as part of the draft Environmental Design SPD.

5.7.Respondents at Proposed Submission stage mostly highlighted the need to consider financial viability and technical feasibility in this policy. The requirements for BREEAM Excellent and CfSH level 4 are supported by our evidence base (see above) which indicates the requirements are feasible and viable. In practice the council will assess schemes on their merits and there may be circumstances where it accepts that the required standards cannot be achieved and a lower standard is accepted in that instance. Berkley Homes, One Housing Group and Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association considered the requirement for all major new-build residential developments to achieve CfSH level 6 by 2016 to be onerous. This part of the policy has been amended in the Submission document to require CfSH Level 5 in 2016 (rather than Level 6) to bring it into line with the revised national definition of 'zero carbon'. Berkley Homes has responded to say they welcome this amendment.

5.8.The NPPF states that planning should, amongst other things, “support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate” (para 17). The focus of this policy on CfSH and BREEAM is in accordance with the NPPF which states that “when setting any local requirement for a building’s sustainability, do so in a way consistent with the Government’s zero carbon buildings policy and adopt nationally described standards” (para 95).

5.9.The NPPF also recognises the role of planning in minimising waste and pollution (para 7); and states that LPAs should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of (amongst other issues) water supply and demand considerations (para 94).

5.10. The Zero Carbon Phase 2 evidence base study18 investigated proposed targets for BREEAM and CfSH. It concluded that: for major residential developments, the evidence base suggests that a

CfSH Level 4 target is generally viable (part A of policy DM43)



for minor residential developments, a CfSH Level 4 target (in addition to a 25% onsite reduction target and a requirement to offset remaining carbon emissions) is generally viable19 (part B of policy DM43)

for major non-domestic developments, the evidence base is more limited in the support it lends to the proposed Borough-wide BREEAM Excellent target (part D of policy DM43)

5.11. The analysis which informed the above conclusions included estimates of the professional fees associated with the Code Level 4 and BREEAM Excellent assessment processes (including additional costs for specialist consultants for the cases where it was considered that these would be incurred) and data on the costs of securing the required credits to achieve Code Level 4 and BREEAM Excellent. This data formed part of the residual profit appraisals for each of the representative case studies, as referred to in paragraph 3.16 above.

5.12. The feasibility and viability of achieving the specified targets, including the targets on major non-domestic developments, is further supported by Islington Council’s experience of securing high standards on the CfSHand BREEAM to date:

Major residential and non-residential developments are already required to achieve CfSH Level 4 and BREEAM Excellent as standard, based on policy CS10 and policies in the London Plan. The council’s monitoring data shows that in 2010-11 and 2011-12 the vast majority of approved major applications (82% and 79% respectively) committed to achieving BREEAM Excellent and/or CfSH Level 4

A requirement to achieve CfSH Level 4 is already secured on minor new build residential schemes, based on policy CS10 and policies in the London Plan 2011.

5.13. Major residential and non-residential developments are in many instances already committing to achieve the minimum number of credits for materials, waste and water efficiency on CfSH Homes and BREEAM specified in the policy, or are only falling a little short of the target, therefore the specified minimum standards are considered reasonable. This is demonstrated by an analysis of credit scoring in BREEAM and CfSH pre-assessments available for major applications approved in the financial year 2011-1220; the results are compared against the policy requirements on materials, waste and water efficiency scoring in the table below:

Requirements for BREEAM schemes

Findings from analysis of BREEAM credit scoring from 2011-12 data

At least 50% of credits on Mat 1 Mean credit score is 51% of creditsAt least 1 credit on responsible 9 out of 11 (81%) approved BREEAM 19 Although for residential-led mixed use schemes, scheme viability becomes more marginal. In practice where planning permission is sought for such schemes and viability is claimed to make achieving the targets impossible this policy will be applied flexibly i.e. the council will seek a full evidence based justification and make a judgement on that basis.20 Pre-assessments were available for 18 of 24 major applications approved in 2011-12.


sourcing applications scored at least one credit on responsible sourcing

50% of credits on Wst 1 Mean credit score is 68% of creditsNon-residential major applications to achieve all credits for water efficiency

All but one scheme achieved to securing 2 out of 3 credits (one credit short of target).

Requirements for Code for Sustainable Homes schemes

Findings from analysis of CfSHcredit scoring from 2011-12 data

At least 50% of credits on Mat 1 Mean credit score is 42% of creditsAt least 50% of credits on Mat 2 Mean credit score is 47% of creditsAt least 1 credit on Mat 3 6 out of 7 (86%) approved Code

applications scored at least one credit on Mat 3

All credits on Was 2 6 out of 7 (86%) approved Code applications scored all credits on Was 2

5.14. Overall, the requirements of parts E, F and G are not considered to raise technical feasibility or viability issues as the technologies and processes required to achieve the standards are readily available.

6. DM44 – Heating and cooling

6.1.This policy sets out a cooling hierarchy and requires major developments to provide thermal modelling to demonstrate effective design for the future climate.

6.2. The need for this policy is set out in paragraph 6.0.18 of the draft Environmental Design SPD; the subsequent paragraphs provide further guidance on implementation of the policy. The need for full building thermal modelling in particular (a requirement of the policy) has been reinforced by recent studies21.

6.3. The policy was developed ahead of Policy 5.9 (Overheating and cooling) of the London Plan 2011 which takes a similar approach (albeit less detailed and with no requirements for thermal modelling), setting out a cooling hierarchy that major development proposals should follow in order to reduce potential overheating and reliance on air conditioning systems. Policy DM44 is in accordance with part D of this policy which states that “Within LDFs boroughs should develop more detailed policies and proposals to support the avoidance of overheating and to support the cooling hierarchy”.

6.4. The policy is linked to Policy CS10 (part E) of the Core Strategy which requires all development to demonstrate that it is designed to be adapted

21 Understanding overheating. NHBC Foundation, July 2012. www.nhbcfoundation.org/Guidance on the design and construction of sustainable, low carbon office buildings, Target Zero, January 2012. www.targetzero.info/


to climate change, particularly through design which minimises overheating.

6.5. Development of the policy and supporting guidance has been informed by research commissioned from building overheating experts at the University of Bath22 (to ensure modelling requirements are robust and reasonable) and by an expert at the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) who is developing a new overheating methodology (to ensure that the approach is compatible with new national guidance under development).

6.6. No objections to this policy were received at Direction of Travel stageor Proposed Submission stage. Natural England suggested that the Council should give consideration to the cooling effects of green space and biodiversity, as well as energy efficiency measures. While the cooling effects of green space were already highlighted in the supporting text to Policy DM38 and the draft Environmental Design SPD, the policy wording has been amended in the Submission document to also highlight the role of soft landscaping in minimising unwanted heat gain and managing heat.

6.7. The policy is consistent with the NPPF (para 94) which states that “Local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change”.

6.8. The council already seeks full details of overheating mitigation (prior to use of air conditioning) for all major planning applications, in accordance with policy 5.9 of the London Plan 2011 and policy CS10 part E of Islington’s Core Strategy; this is supported by a non-statutory good practice guide developed by the council on low energy cooling (http://www.islington.gov.uk/publicrecords/documents/Environment/Pdf/low_energy_cooling.pdf). Adoption of this policy (supplemented by the guidance on the draft Environmental Design SPD) will help to provide greater clarity to developers about exactly what steps need to be taken and what information needs to be provided; it will also ensure that new developments are fit for purpose and future proofed for a changing climate.

7. Site Allocations and the Finsbury Local Plan

Site Allocations

7.1.The Site Allocations document identifies the sites that are considered important in delivering the policies and objectives of the Core Strategy and sets out site specific policies for these sites.

7.2.The findings of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) undertaken on each version of the document have informed the development of policies

22 Thermal modelling, weather years and overheating. University of Bath, 2011.


relating to energy and environmental issues. Positive impacts identified by the SA included the potential for the development of certain sites to support the roll out of decentralised energy (DE) networks. This is in accordance with policies within the Core Strategy and DevelopmentManagement Policies supporting development of DE networks and would have a positive impact on climate change mitigation as DE networks provide a low carbon source of heat (and also potentially help to reduce fuel poverty by providing an affordable heat supply). For this reason the Site Allocations document highlights “supporting the development of Decentralised Energy networks” as one of the Core Strategy objectives that the site allocations will help to deliver.

7.3.Key potential negative impacts of the development of specific sites identified by the SA were impact on sites of importance for nature conservation (SINCs) and surface water flood risk. Negative impacts on SINCs would generally be mitigated by policies elsewhere in the Core Strategy and Development Management DPDs; where a site is located adjacent to a SINC the relevant site allocation has highlighted this. Flood risk is discussed further below.

7.4.Fluvial flooding does not constitute a risk to Islington but surface water flooding does. As the Environment Agency state23: “The London borough of Islington has no land within the flood zones and no properties are at risk of tidal or fluvial (river) flooding. In low-lying areas there is potentially a high risk of surface water flooding, particularly in areas where the urban drainage system has a relatively low capacity.”

7.5.Surface water flood risk was mapped as part of the Drain London project. This identified a number of Local Flood Risk Zones (LFRZs), defined as discrete areas of surface water flooding that do not exceed the national criteria for a ‘Flood Risk Area’ but still affect houses, businesses or infrastructure. A LFRZ is defined as the actual spatial extent of predicted flooding in a single location.

7.6.As part of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Site Allocations the sites falling within LFRZs were identified. The SA indicated that possible site specific impacts relating to flood risk would generally be mitigated by policies elsewhere in the Core Strategy and Development Management DPD; where these impacts were potentially most acute they were highlighted in the relevant site policies (following recommendations made in the SA). The SA also advised that these risks would need to be fully evaluated and mitigated on a site by site basis as schemes are brought forward.

7.7.Additional research will be triggered by planning policy requirements where developments are located in LFRZs. Policy DM39 of the draft Development Management Policies establishes requirements for

23 Islington borough: Environmental summary, Environment Agency, 2010. http://www.islington.gov.uk/publicrecords/documents/CommunityandLiving/Pdf/Environment_Factsheet_Oct2010.pdf


sustainable drainage systems in new developments across the borough (in order to mitigate flood risk) and also requires sites located in LFRZs to submit a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA; guidance is provided in the draft Environmental Design SPD) taking climate change projections into account and to provide additional flood storage where this is required. The council may also commission additional studies of flood risk in the LFRZs as part of finalising its Surface Water Management Plan.

7.8.The NPPF states that “Local Plans should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development to avoid where possible flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk, taking account of the impacts of climate change”. This should include applying the Sequential Test (to areas known to be at risk from any form of flooding) “to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding.” Given that Islington is a small densely built up borough it is not considered that there are any reasonably available alternative sites for those site allocations that fall within LFRZs.

7.9.The NPPF states that if it is not possible, consistent with wider sustainability objectives, for the development to be located in zones with a lower probability of flooding, the Exception Test can be applied. For the Exception Test to be passed:

it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and

a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

7.10. The site allocations located within LFRZs will provide multiple wider sustainability benefits to the community, as the SA has highlighted; this will be reinforced by the need to comply with a range of policies in the Core Strategy and other DPDs which seek to jointly secure economic, social and environmental gains (in accordance with the NPPF). Moreover,the need to address flood risk has been highlighted in the relevant site allocations policies and policy DM39 of the draft Development Management Policies will require development proposals that come forward in the LFRZs to provide a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrating that the development will be safe for its lifetime and that it will not increase flood risk elsewhere. Therefore it is concluded that the site allocations complies with the Exception Test.

7.11. There has been extensive cross borough working about flood risk. The Drain London study, which informed Islington’s Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment and draft Surface Water Management Plan was a pan-


London piece of work and involved Islington working with a number of other boroughs, including neighbouring boroughs. Islington are also working with the City of London and Hackney regarding exchange of data on flood risk and planning of flood risk mitigation measures.

Finsbury Local Plan

7.12. Objective 3 of the Finsbury Local Plan (FLP) is “To enhance the quality of the local environment, improving the health and wellbeing of residents, reducing carbon emissions and adapting to climate change”. The supporting text (section 3.5) provides further details of the environmental challenges and opportunities confronting the densely developed urban environment of Bunhill and Clerkenwell – these include a lack of biodiversity, poor air quality, significant risk of surface water flooding and high summer temperatures (due to the predominance of impermeable surfaces and the urban heat island effect), but also opportunities to support high rates of walking, cycling and public transport use and to develop decentralised energy networks to provide low carbon heat to buildings (implementation of the Bunhill heat network is already under way and additional opportunities for DE network development in the AAP area under active investigation).

7.13. In accordance with objective 3 of the FLP and policies in the in the Core Strategy and Development Management DPDs, the policies contained within the FLP highlight, where appropriate, the need for development proposals to: create and/or enhance green space and biodiversity (including through tree planting which will also help to moderate peak summer temperatures and provide shade); integrate sustainable drainage systems to mitigate flood risk; support walking and cycling, for example by providing an integrated and legible network of routes; support public transport provision by investing in public transport infrastructure (e.g. improved interchange between bus, train and tube at Old Street); support the expansion of DE networks (including in some cases by providing a decentralised energy centre as part of a scheme).

7.14. The FLP also includes 48 site allocations. Where relevant these alsohighlight certain energy and/or environmental requirements or issues. For example, where sites are located close to a planned or potential DE network, the distance to the network is highlighted in the site allocation; and where a site is adjacent to a SINC this is flagged up along with the need to enhance local biodiversity. The approach to assessing flood risk (and ensuring related impacts are mitigated) was undertaken concurrently with allocations contained in the Site Allocations DPD (see paragraphs 7.4 to 7.11).


8. Bibliography

1. Promoting Zero Carbon Development - PPS1A evidence base. Fulcrum Consulting, 2009.

2. Promoting Zero Carbon Development Phase 2 Report. AECOM and Davis Langdon, 2010.

3. Borough-wide Decentralised Energy Strategy. Parsons Brinkerhoff, April 2010

4. Islington Core Strategy Topic Paper: Sustainable Design. Islington Council, June 2010.

5. Draft Environmental Design SPD. Islington Council, May 2012.

6. Thermal modelling, weather years and overheating. University of Bath, 2011.

7. Islington Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Colin Buchanan, Capita Symonds and Professor Morphet, October 2009.

8. 40% carbon reduction by 2020. London Borough of Islington, June 2011. Report of the regeneration and employment review committee.

9. Defining a fabric energy efficiency standard for zero carbon homes. Task group recommendations. Zero Carbon Hub, November 2009.

10.Carbon compliance for tomorrow’s new homes. A review of the modelling tools and assumptions. Topic 4: Closing the gap between designed and built performance. Zero Carbon Hub, August 2010.

11.Closing the gap: Lessons learned on realising the potential of low carbon building design. Carbon Trust, July 2011.

12.Guidance on the design and construction of sustainable, low carbon office buildings. Target Zero, January 2012.

13.Understanding overheating. NHBC Foundation, July 2012.

14.Update of Islington Core Strategy Policy Targets. Mott MacDonald Fulcrum, January 2011.

Documents

Development Management Policies, Site Allocations & Finsbury