Industry still no clearer on what makes a ‘zero carbon’ house
Shapps misses carbon definition deadline
The government has failed to deliver on its promise to define the environmental standards that all new homes must meet from 2016 before the parliamentary recess.
Housing minister Grant Shapps announced on Tuesday that he would give developers and councils ‘more flexibility’ to decide how to meet zero carbon standards from 2012. But he shied away from giving any detail on what those standards would be.
In May, Mr Shapps promised the sector that the government would publish a definition of zero carbon before parliament broke for the summer. Key sector figures believe ministers will not now be able to publish a definition until November.
Liz Peace, chief executive of the British Property Federation, warned that the industry needed a definition soon to give it time to prepare for the target to make all new homes zero carbon by 2016.
Paul King, chief executive of the UK Green Building Council, said: ‘We now need to move swiftly to confirm the detail of the final definition; this will boost confidence among industry and other stakeholders involved in practical delivery.’
Mr Shapps this week launched a community energy fund, which will allow developers to fund local energy projects rather than installing expensive on-site renewables. He confirmed future revisions to the building regulations will include minimum standards for fabric energy efficiency.
However, he is reconsidering the national benchmark for mitigating carbon emissions on building sites by using renewable energy.
‘I will need to be realistic and take account of costs. The government recognises the challenges posed by the 70 per cent level previously proposed and the case for this needs to be examined,’ he said.
A CLG spokesperson said: ‘The definition as such isn’t the most important question to answer - a zero carbon home is a home that does what it says on the tin: where energy use does not add to our carbon footprint; where energy demand is minimised.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (14)
Rick Campbell | 30/07/2010 1:11 am
I sit on my posterior and I speak through my mouth. It's a pity that some government ministers may not be able to do so because of lack of knowledge of the differebce between them?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Campbell | 30/07/2010 1:13 am
Whilst I might know the difference, I have trouble in spelling it sometimes!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30/07/2010 8:47 am
The more issues Shapps puts his hand to, the more it seems he missed his vocation as a merchant banker.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30/07/2010 9:54 am
Never thought 2016 will be the year for zero carbon builds (whatever the definition will be). With the cost of Code Level 5 or 6 builds being around £27,000 per unit greater it just makes new builds too expensive. Who’s going to develop, who’s going to build, who's going to buy?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 30/07/2010 4:52 pm
Play fair - Shapps is no doubt waiting for his village people to tell him what the definition should be; or perhaps he is waiting for someone to help him spell OC2, as it can be very tricky!
Shapps and Pickles - Laurel and Hardy - spot the difference!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30/07/2010 6:54 pm
Well what do we do with this bright spark who is obsessed with scrapping the TSA and not saying how or what he is going to replace it with, he is doing the same here waiting for somebody else to tell him and then saying we do not want that and again not putting else in its place where are his brains. As for 8:47 I doubt he would find his way there and for the salary he gets paid he should be paying the treasury not to do the job he is not fit for, a very bad choice Mr Prime Minister
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 31/07/2010 0:07 am
AGW is a myth invented by credulous Lefties looking for a cause now that the Soviet Union has collapsed; a myth which has been propagated by ropey academics looking to get more state handouts and a myth encouraged by New World Order oligarchs who see a massive opportunity for One World Government in the form of so-called "carbon taxes". It is a religion and a dangerous one at that.
The Tories know this deep down but are still a bit scared to go there. So man up Tories and remove all this NuLab legislation that bangs on about 80% cuts in CO2 emissions and which will inevitably lead the country back to the Stone Age.
Concentrate on rational solutions like the restoration of Parker Morris space standard for both private and social housing so as to prevent the epidemic of rabbit hutches that spawned under NuLab....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Campbell | 31/07/2010 12:18 pm
A golden nugget there from ILAG!! The Parker Morris standard - a bloody good thing it was too!! Bring it back -- NOW!!!!
A thank you from me to ILAG!! There's a first but look forward to many others!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 02/08/2010 10:05 pm
Ah yes, Parker Morris, building on the great foundations of Webb and Morrison. The Parker Morris standard, invented at a time of Socialist planned economies, the longest sustained post-war economic boom, house building programmes to meet housing need and private sector rent controls; not to mention a growing welfare state with truly free health-care.
No wonder even ILAG looks back at such wonders and wishes that they could return.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 03/08/2010 0:34 am
Yes the 1945 Labour Government was truly remarkable in their achievements, all done in the name of the national interest. That interest which was so clearly betrayed by the last shower to rule under the name of "Labour". Doubtless Hardie, Attlee & Bevan were spinning in their graves during the 13 year Orwellian nightmare that was NuLab.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment