* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Climate Change and Renewable Energy Background Paper (CCDC
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Energiewende in Germany wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Carbon governance in England wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Climate Change Background Paper 2011 Contents 1. Introduction p1 Purpose and scope of the Background Paper p1 Policy Context Overview p1 2. Existing State of Cannock Chase District and Potential Implications p11 Causes of Climate Change- Headline Indicators p11 Impacts of Climate Change- Key Implications p17 3. Future Capacity of Cannock Chase District to respond to climate change p22 Physical considerations p22 Financial considerations p28 Other Local Authority Examples p32 5. Summary and Key Conclusions p37 Annex 1 p39 1 1. Introduction Purpose and Scope of Background Paper “Climate change is the greatest market failure the world has ever seen, and it interacts with other market imperfections.” Lord Stern, 2006 The global challenge posed by climate change is increasingly being recognized and actions are being taken to ensure that the UK is poised to respond to this challenge. “Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world – access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms” (Lord Stern, 2006). As a result of such assessments, the UK government has taken forward a range of legislative and policy measures to ensure action at the national and local level represents a comprehensive response. This background paper provides a brief overview of this key policy and legislative framework, with an emphasis upon planning policy. It then analyses existing information available in order to highlight the key implications of climate change at the local level for Cannock Chase District and inform policy development (in the absence of a local climate change strategy or Local Climate Impacts Profile for the District). Consideration is then given to how Cannock Chase can address local climate change issues, with emphasis upon the role of planning policy and implementation. Policy Context Overview National Policy Momentum for tackling climate change on a national scale has been gathering apace since the publication of the United Nations Brundtland report, ‘Our Common Future’ in 1987, which served to highlight growing concerns with the impact of human activity upon the natural environment including greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Whilst the extent of society’s contribution to climate change has been contested, it appears that there is now a wider recognition of human activities’ role in contributing to global warming via greenhouse emissions and that unabated climate change may result in irreversible detrimental consequences for society (Stern Review, 2006). In light of previous emissions it is also now considered that a degree of climate change is inevitable and thus the nature of the built and natural environment will alter. As a result “responding to climate change involves an iterative risk management process that includes both adaptation and mitigation” (IPCC 2007 p23). UK national planning guidance reflects this international approach and “planning should contribute to reducing emissions and stabilising climate change and take into account the unavoidable consequences” (DCLG 2007 p1). The conclusions of the Brundtland report, and subsequent research by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) eventually led to the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which represents a commitment by the UK government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012 and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. Since the Kyoto Protocol, UK national policy on climate change has progressed even further, spurned on by influential reports such as the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change 2006. This report, whilst not the only one of its kind, has been one 2 of the most widely discussed because of its economic assessment regarding the potential costs of climate change. The Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, potentially rising to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year. The Stern Review identified planning as one of four key areas for tackling ‘adaptation’ by facilitating “public and private investment in buildings and other long-lived infrastructure to take account of climate change” (2006 p21). In particular, changes in people’s attitudes and behaviour need to be addressed via regulation, for example the setting of minimum standards and ‘information policies’ (Stern 2006 p20). Thus a key area for planning to respond to climate change is via the formulation and implementation of policies for new, and where possible existing, built developments. In parallel to the production of this review, the UK Government has introduced a number of strategies and legislative measures. The most important of these is arguably The Climate Change Act 2008, which sets an overarching framework for government action and sets more challenging greenhouse gas reduction targets; at least an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a cut in carbon dioxide emissions of at least 26% by 2020 and 60% by 2050 (all from a 1990 baseline). This would mean a reduction in per capita emissions from 10.3 tonnes (1990) to 7.6 tonnes (2026)1. It also established the Committee on Climate Change, which is responsible for setting binding interim carbon budgets for the Government over successive five-year periods. The previous Labour Government recently launched the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan2 White Paper on 15 July 2009 (which appears to be largely supported still by the current Government). The plan forms the national strategy for climate change and energy. The plan includes a range of measures including provisions of a feed-in-tariff and renewable heat incentive which pays a premium for renewable electricity or heat generated; smart meters for every home by 2020; support for the fuel poor including increased Warm Front grants; further proposals to be published in future for zero carbon new homes from 2016 and whole house energy saving treatments for existing buildings. The UK also has a legally binding target to supply 15% of all of the energy it uses from renewable sources by 2020. This target should be achieved by using renewable energy technologies to supply: Over 30% of our electricity 12% of the heat we use 10% of energy for transport The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (produced by the former Labour Government and under review by the current Government) included key actions to help achieve these targets such as developing skills and providing resources to support swifter development and implementation of local energy planning policy, removing barriers in the planning system where possible, and strengthening the supply chain. It also included the proposals for the renewable heat incentive and feed-in-tariffs. 1 2 UN Development Goals Monitoring The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (DECC, July 2009) 3 In response to the most recent climate change projections the previous Labour Government launched a five-point action plan (which appears to still be supported by the new coalition Government). This includes ‘protecting the public from immediate risk’ i.e. flood defences and developing NHS heat wave plans; ‘building a low carbon economy’ i.e. via targets for reduction as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008; and ‘preparing for the future’. This will include the need for local authorities to report on actions taken in terms of adapting to climate change via planning and risk management (the power for central government to require this was introduced by the Climate Change Act 2008). In terms of planning policy, the Planning Act 2008 crucially amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 by requiring that “Development plan documents must (taken as a whole) include policies designed to secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority's area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change." The Planning Act 2008 also introduced the enabling legislation for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which will empower local authorities to levy a charge on development to support infrastructure development. The definition of infrastructure for this purpose is broad, to allow local authorities flexibility to account for local needs, but would include for example transport links, schools, health care facilities, drainage, sporting facilities, open spaces and energy supply infrastructure. Whilst there have been a series of proactive moves towards tackling climate change through national planning policy via PPS22 Renewable Energy (2004) or PPS25 Development and Flood Risk, the advent of PPS1 Supplement Planning and Climate Change signaled an overarching policy response. PPS1 Supplement reinforces the prominence of climate change considerations in planning policy by requiring local authorities to prepare and deliver spatial strategies that: “make a full contribution to delivering the Government’s Climate Change Programme and energy policies, and in doing so contribute to global sustainability; in providing for the homes, jobs, services and infrastructure needed by communities, and in renewing and shaping the places where they live and work, secure the highest viable resource and energy efficiency and reduction in emissions; deliver patterns of urban growth and sustainable rural developments that help secure the fullest possible use of sustainable transport for moving freight, public transport, cycling and walking; and, which overall, reduce the need to travel, especially by car; secure new development and shape places that minimise vulnerability, and provide resilience, to climate change; and in ways that are consistent with social cohesion and inclusion; conserve and enhance biodiversity, recognising that the distribution of habitats and species will be affected by climate change; reflect the development needs and interests of communities and enable them to contribute effectively to tackling climate change; and respond to the concerns of business and encourage competitiveness and technological innovation in mitigating and adapting to climate change.” (PPS1 Supplement 2007 p10) The PPS1 Supplement highlights the importance of considering a sites ability to tackle both the causes of climate change, for instance via renewable energy installations, and adapt to the potential effects e.g. higher summer temperatures or increased flood risk before it is allocated for 4 development. The PPS1 Supplement highlights the importance of planning authorities assessing a site in terms of: “the capacity of existing and potential infrastructure (including for water supply, sewage and sewerage, waste management and community infrastructure such as schools and hospitals) to service the site or area in ways consistent with cutting carbon dioxide emissions and successfully adapting to likely changes in the local climate; the ability to build and sustain socially cohesive communities with appropriate community infrastructure, having regard to the full range of local impacts that could arise as a result of likely changes to the climate; the effect of development on biodiversity and its capacity to adapt to likely changes in the climate; the contribution to be made from existing and new opportunities for open space and green infrastructure to urban cooling, sustainable drainage systems, and conserving and enhancing biodiversity; and known physical and environmental constraints on the development of land such as sea level rises, flood risk and stability, and take a precautionary approach to increases in risk that could arise as a result of likely changes to the climate.” (PPS1 Supplement 2007 p15) The Supplement reinforces the need for an appropriate evidence base to support climate change policies within Development Plan Documents, such as the Core Strategy and it emphasises the need for positive planning policies that support the development of renewable energy technologies and sustainable construction standards. Most crucially, this PPS takes precedence over all other national guidance. In relation to renewable energy specifically, PPS22 (2004 p9) sets out how the planning system at regional and local levels is expected to contribute towards the national government target of generating 10% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010, 20% by 2020 and “reducing overall demand for energy”. It also outlines the need for local planning authorities to set ‘positive’ policies that encourage renewable energy developments by emphasising their wider social, environmental and economic benefits, thus fostering the required behavioural changes and private sector investment (PPS22 2004 p9-10). The previous Labour Government released a revised draft PPS that combined PPS1 Supplement and PPS22 in March 2010, where the broad policy goals remained the same. However, the current coalition Government is currently undertaking a more substantial review via the production of a National Planning Framework, expected Summer 2011. It is not clear what policies may emerge from this at present although the need for considering climate change will not alter. In addition to advances in planning policy considerable steps have been taken to update national Building Regulations with the advent of the Energy Performance Certificates (2008-EPCs) and the Code for Sustainable Homes (2007). Energy Performance Certificates are now required for almost all buildings and they assess its energy efficiency and resultant carbon emissions. They grade a property based upon its performance and provide recommendations for improvements. The current 2006 Building Regulations Part L requires that CO2 emissions calculated for a new development should be equal to or less than a Target Emission Rate. This is generally in the region of 20% lower than CO2 emissions from a building which complies with the 2002 Building Regulations, depending on the specific building type. 5 The Code for Sustainable Homes represents a move towards ‘zero-carbon’ developments by requiring new dwellings to attain a certain ‘code’ rating that reflects its sustainability in terms of carbon emissions. The Code does go beyond carbon emissions by awarding credits for other climate change and sustainable development measures such as reductions in water consumption, waste and ecology. Through its ‘Building a Greener Future’ (2006) policy statement the previous Government set out its ambition that all new UK homes should be zero carbon by 2016, with a stepped approach of a 25% reduction in carbon emissions by 2010, and a 44% improvement by 2013 (both compared to 2006 building performances). All new homes must now be rated against the ‘Code’ in Home Information Packs, even if they have not been assessed (resulting in a ‘nil’ rating). The Code is mandatory for publicly funded development and has been enforced sector wide at Code level 3 through the Building Regulations since 2010. However, the only parts of the Code that will be taken through legislation in the form of the Building Regulations are the standards for energy and water consumption. The current Government still appears to support this timetable and the energy requirements of Code Level 3 are now enforced via updated building regulations (2010). Relative emissions rates to 2016 Emissions rates -25% -44% -100% 2006 2010 2013 unregulated emissions 2016 regulated emissions Figure 1.1 Code for Sustainable Homes Ratings and Emissions Ratings Reduction Trajectory The Definition of Zero Carbon Homes and Non-Domestic Buildings consultation in 2009 sought to clarify the definition of zero carbon that will be applied to new homes and buildings through proposed changes to the Building Regulations. This addressed the concern that the original definition, which followed the definition of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6, would not be feasible or viable on many sites. The Government published a hierarchy for how CO2 emissions should be reduced to achieve the zero carbon emissions standard (Figure 1.2). 6 Figure 1.2 Draft proposed hierarchy for reducing CO2 emissions Developments will not be required to achieve zero carbon emissions entirely within the site boundary. There will be a minimum requirement for emissions savings through energy efficient design of the building services and building fabric. Further measures will be required to achieve “carbon compliance” on-site, bringing the emissions savings on-site up to 70%. These can include building integrated renewable energy, additional energy efficiency features and connection to a heat network. The residual CO2 emissions beyond carbon compliance are to be dealt with through “allowable solutions”. Likely allowable solutions include: Further carbon reductions on site Energy efficient appliances Advanced forms of building control system which reduce the level of energy use in the home Exports of low carbon or renewable heat from the development to other developments Investments in low and zero carbon community heat infrastructure Other allowable solutions remain under consideration. In the responses to the consultation there have been mixed views on the use of allowable solutions. Following on from this consultation the current Government is still considering the definition of zero-carbon via a taskforce group which is due to report early in 2011 on the recommended approach. As part of the former Government’s Strategy for Sustainable Construction (2008) there were also moves towards the introduction of a zero-carbon programme for non-domestic buildings. The ambition was to achieve zero-carbon new schools by 2016, public non-domestic buildings by 2018 and other non-domestic buildings by 2019 (it is unclear at present if this timetable will still be adhered to). At present, BREEAM standards offer a benchmark for sustainable construction in non-domestic buildings. BREEAM standards are used world-wide and they provide a weighted rating based upon a building’s sustainability; certain sections need to be fulfilled as a minimum to achieve specific ratings (see Figures 2 and 3 below). 7 Figure 2 Example BREEAM assessments rating for commercial developments A development can achieve a rating from unclassified to outstanding based upon its score (outstanding requires in excess of 85 points and is a new classification introduced in 2008). Current benchmarks are set at achieving good to very good, which require scores in excess of 45 or 55 respectively. Figure 3 Example BREEAM assessments minimum requirements for each level of rating 8 The carbon reductions to be achieved via BREEAM ratings are related to the Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) carbon index. BREEAM awards credits based upon the level of reductions achieved. The 6 credits (for an excellent rating) is equivalent to a score of 40 on the EPC Index, where 0 is a zero-carbon home. Former Regional Policy The former regional policy framework for planning primarily consisted of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (2008). The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the West Midlands was first issued as Regional Planning Guidance (RPG11) in June 2004. Alterations were made as part of the Phase 1 Revision in January 2008 to cover the Black Country specifically, most notably a rise in prominence of the need for the region to tackle climate change (via a specific policy for the Black Country to respond to climate change). This is in terms of helping to achieve national targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases and deliver sustainable development overall. The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the West Midlands, Phase Two Revision Draft Preferred Option was published in December 2007, and reinforced the importance of climate change for the region by including four new policies at the outset of the strategy relating to climate change, sustainable communities, sustainable construction and improving air quality for sensitive ecosystems. The RSS Phase Two Revision underwent examination in summer 2009 and the Panel Report (2009) largely endorsed the principles of the policies, although these were subject to change in terms of targets and thresholds set. The former Regional Economic Strategy also identified a series of strategic objectives that emphasised the importance of moving towards a low carbon economy. In the Staffordshire region this led to funding and support through the Staffordshire-Shropshire Renewables Programme. The project aimed to build upon the success of the Stafford Biomass Project (resulting in the Eccleshall Biomass Plant) and extended its scope to include the development of a strong Renewables Business Network as well as funding feasibility studies for individual buildings to incorporate renewable energy supplies. County Council and Local Policy Cannock Chase Council adopted its revised Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) in 2008, which is under review. As part of the current vision for the area up to 2020, the Council sets out its ambitions for tackling climate change primarily through achieving higher standards of energy efficiency in new and existing properties; reductions in unnecessary journeys and improved public transport provision. The former implementation mechanism for the SCS was the Local Area Agreement. However, in light of the new Government agenda the current system is under review. Key actions and implementation mechanisms will most likely be set via the Council’s Priority Delivery Plans (typically 3 year action plans setting out key targets). Cannock Chase Council has also signed up to the Staffordshire Declaration on Climate Change in 2008. The Declaration serves to illustrate that the Council recognises the evidence for climate change and its implications for people and places. 9 The Cannock Chase Council Local Plan (1997) sets out the principles of sustainable development in its overall strategy, but no explicit reference is made to climate change. However, as part of the Council’s Validation Requirements for Planning Applications, developers must set out in their planning statements how a development will address climate change in terms of mitigation and adaptation. The emerging Core Strategy proposes a vision for the District that reflects the longerterm ambitions of the Sustainable Community Strategy and incorporates the implications for future built development within the area. It sets out the Council’s ambitions for future development to contribute towards tackling the causes of climate change and consider the implications of its potential effects. The Core Strategy brings together a range of objectives from other strategies and plans including Staffordshire County Local Transport Plan; the Cannock Chase Council Economic Strategy; the Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan and Air Quality Management Area Plans. The preferred options for areas of future growth and policy requirements are based upon the combination of these strategies and detailed evidence base work, such as a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment of the District. The Core Strategy proposes a policy area that explicitly refers to the need for climate change implications to be accounted for in new development. 10 2. Existing State of Cannock Chase District and Potential Implications Causes of Climate Change- Headline Indicators Carbon Emissions At present, Cannock Chase per capita emissions are below the national and regional averages and they are the second lowest in Staffordshire. Whilst there was a slight rise in emissions between 2005 and 2006 levels have since fallen year on year. 2006 Per Capita Emissions (tonnes) Cannock Chase East Staffordshire Lichfield Newcastle-underLyme South Staffordshire Stafford Staffordshire Moorlands Tamworth West Midlands Total UK Total 2008 Per Capita Emissions (tonnes) 6.1 10 9 8.3 5.7 9.5 8.7 8.1 10.4 11 15 9.8 10.5 14.3 5.9 8.3 5.4 7.9 8.7 8.2 Table 1 Per Capita Carbon Emissions in Staffordshire, the West Midlands and UK provided by DECC (2010) Local and Regional CO2 Emissions Estimates for 2005-8 In terms of the sources of carbon emissions in the District, Chart 1 below illustrates that the domestic sector is the largest emitting source, accounting for 44% of all emissions (2008). This is slightly above the national average (30% in 2008) whilst the other sources are below the national average. The proportions for 2006 emissions are broadly the same to those in 2008. 23% 33% Industry and Commerical Domestic Road Transport 44% Chart 1 Cannock Chase District Carbon Emissions by Source (2008) provided by DECC (2010) Local and Regional CO2 Emissions Estimates for 2005-8 11 Cannock Chase District is below the West Midland averages for industry and commercial and road transport carbon emissions per capita; however it is slightly above the regional and national averages for domestic emissions per capita. When compared with other Staffordshire authorities the District also fairs relatively well overall, particularly in terms of road transport emissions. Cannock Chase East Staffordshire Lichfield Newcastle-underLyme South Staffordshire Stafford Staffordshire Moorlands Tamworth West Midlands Total UK Total Industry and Commercial Domestic Road Transport 2006 2008 2006 2008 2006 2008 2.1 5.3 2.9 1.9 4.9 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.7 1.4 2.3 3.4 1.3 2.2 3.3 2.2 2.4 3.1 2.2 2.1 2.9 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.6 5.2 5 3.5 5.1 4.9 10.6 2.5 3.4 4 9.6 2.2 3.1 3.7 2.8 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.2 2.4 2.4 1.9 1.1 2.4 2.2 1.9 1 2.4 2.1 Table 2 Comparison of Per Capita Carbon Emissions in tonnes by Source (2006-8) provided by DECC (2010) Local and Regional CO2 Emissions Estimates for 2005-8 Given that the District’s main source of emissions is from the domestic sector further analysis of the particular sources is provided below. The largest source of carbon emissions is from the use of gas, followed by electricity consumption. This analysis is concurrent with national energy consumption indicators, which indicate that Cannock Chase District is within the upper quartile of all UK authorities in terms of domestic energy consumption per household and domestic gas consumption per room3. A similar breakdown is apparent for 2006, with gas again dominating usage. However, the District overall is within the lower quartile in terms of its overall energy consumption per capita (concurrent with lower than average carbon emissions per capita). 5% 40% Domestic Electricity Domestic Gas 55% Domestic 'Other Fuels' Chart 2 Domestic Carbon Emissions by Source (2008) provided by DECC (2010) Local and Regional CO2 Emissions Estimates for 2005-8 3 DECC 2007 High Level Energy Indicators- published 2010 12 Council Service Emissions Analysis suggests that Council services account for 0.04 tonnes of all Cannock Chase District’s carbon emissions per capita. Buildings and street lights represent the largest emitters of carbon and electricity is the dominant energy source. The District’s leisure centres represent the main sources of emissions, followed by the Civic Centre. Table 3 below demonstrates how the Council’s overall emissions have fallen from 2005-2007, arising from reductions in transport emissions. Year 2005 2006 2007 Total CO2 Emission (tonnes) 3,916 3,365 3,606 Emissions from building and street lights (tonnes) 2,984 2,758 2,984 Emissions from transport (tonnes) 932 607 622 Emissions from electricity (kg) Emissions from gas consumption (kg) 1,744,226.57 1,760,301.96 1,744,226.57 1,239,968.41 997,413.92 1,239,968.41 Table 3 Cannock Chase Council Carbon Emissions Non-carbon emissions Whilst carbon emissions are the main source of climate change, the UK Government targets also commit the UK to reducing other greenhouse gas emissions. These include nitrogen oxide, methane and water vapour. Air quality in the district has improved over the years, particularly with the introduction of domestic smoke control. However there are a number of industrial activities within the district which are classed as installations subject to pollution prevention control, such as Rugeley Power Station (one of the Region’s largest points of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution). The Council undertook an updating and screening study of air quality in 2007 and this report supported the decision of 2006 to declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) along the A5 Watling Street in Bridgtown and Longford for nitrogen dioxide as levels exceeded national recommendations. The AQMA covers a stretch of the A5 Watling Street between the roundabout junction with the A34 Walsall Road at Churchbridge and the district boundary at Longford, and the stretch of the A460 between the roundabout junction with the A5 Watling Street, Longford and the district boundary at Wedges Mills. The area around Rugeley Power Station is monitored for sulphur dioxide emissions and at present there is no evidence of national objectives being exceeded. In December 2005, International Power, the power station operator, announced that they would be installing flue gas desulphurization equipment, which has reduced sulphur dioxide emissions. Further investment will also reduce nitrogen oxide and dust emissions from the plant. Other factors identified in the Cannock Chase Air Quality Progress Report 2007 as potentially having significant impacts on air quality are the new Rugeley bypass (this was identified as a factor in potentially reducing nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate levels along the A51 in Rugeley) and a number of housing and business developments being planned which would affect traffic levels and associated pollution. The Air Quality update 2009 reassessed levels of air pollution and reaffirmed the designation of the AQMA and identifies areas between Churchbridge to Norton Canes as needing further assessment. 13 Energy Use Further analysis of the District’s energy consumption highlights the dominance of gas in the District’s supply and the low level of renewable energy use. In comparison to West Midlands totals, Cannock Chase District is below the regional level for renewable and waste sources and it is above the regional level for natural gas sources. However, the District is below the regional level for coal sources and petroleum product sources. 50 39 39 29 20 19 0.35 2 e W an d El ec tri ci as t ty G as le s N at u ra l uc Pr od 0.8 Cannock Chase West Midlands ab w en e R Pe tro l eu m tu re d C uf ac M an 0.06 ts el s 1 1.2 Fu oa l 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Chart 3 Total Final Energy Consumption by source in Cannock Chase District (2006) compared to West Midlands (percentage) provided by DECC (2011) Total Sub National Final Energy Consumption at Regional and Local Authority Level 2005-8 The energy consumption by sector reflects the carbon emissions picture with the domestic sector representing the largest consumer. National energy consumption indicators indicate that Cannock Chase District is within the upper quartile of all UK authorities in terms of domestic energy consumption per household and domestic gas consumption per room 4. These statistics also confirm that the District is within the lower quartile of all UK authorities in terms of overall per capita energy consumption (domestic and commercial combined) and vehicle consumption per capita. The total energy consumption of Cannock Chase District in 2006 was 1,993GWh (including transport). Domestic and industrial sectors consumed 77% of this total (see Chart 4). 4 DECC 2007 High Level Energy Indicators- published 2010 14 23% 30% Industry and Commercial Domestic Transport 47% Chart 4 Total final energy consumption in Cannock Chase District 2006 provided by DECC (2011) Total final energy consumption at Regional and Local Authority Level 2005-2008. Other Resource Use The District currently recycles over 50% of its waste, compared with 10% in 2005. As part of the Joint Municipal Waste Strategy for Staffordshire and Stoke there are aspirations for ‘zero waste to landfill’ by 2020. This is to be achieved by increasing the number of items that can be recycled as well as via initiatives which promote the re-use of bulky, difficult to recycle items such as home furniture. An assessment of Cannock Chase residents Ecological Footprint (Stockholm Environment Institute 2006) estimates that every person in Cannock consumes the equivalent of 5.26 global hectares per person. This is compared to a world average of 2.2 global hectares per person and a UK average of 5.4 global hectares per person. The highest categories for Cannock Chase residents are in the food, drink and energy sectors. Commentary Overall, the District’s energy use and carbon emissions are within the lower quartile of all UK authorities and below the national average respectively. This could be closely related to the District’s relatively higher usage of gas, which in general emits less carbon than electricity generation. Explanations could also include the relative deprivation of the District; relatively lower levels of economic productively in some parts of the District; it’s relatively compact nature in terms of the population’s proximity to key services and accessibility of public transport reducing the need for private car journeys. The average household income in the District is below the national average and there are pockets within the District that are well below this average. According to the 2007 Indices of Deprivation, the District is ranked by average score as the 135th most deprived in England out of 354, making it the most deprived authority in Staffordshire (excluding Stoke on Trent) and within the 40% most deprived authorities in England. There are some areas within the District that rank within the 1020% most deprived nationally, particularly in terms of educations, skills and training and income deprivation. However, the District is also within the upper quartile of all authorities for domestic energy consumption per capita, which is traditionally associated with higher levels of affluence. In 15 Cannock Chase this could reflect areas of relative affluence within the District but it could also be indicative of poorer levels of energy efficiency in the housing stock. The industry and commercial sector carbon emissions and energy consumption are below the national averages. This may be linked to areas of lower productivity in the District, or perhaps more efficient industrial consumers. The comparatively lower levels of carbon emissions and energy consumption from the road transport sector require further analysis in terms of their source. The 2008 Strategic Housing Market Area Report summarises travel to work patterns and identifies Cannock Chase District as being 50% ‘self contained’ i.e. 50% of journeys to work are within the District. This compares with 23% for South Staffordshire, (illustrative of high levels of out-commuting), and an average of 60% for the Black Country authorities (Sandwell, Walsall, Dudley and Wolverhampton). 2001 Census data indicates that the District’s levels of car ownership and distances travelled to work are within national average ranges and that there is a net employment outflow overall. Therefore, it may be that the lower level of emissions arises from commuting rather than industry related traffic, potentially apportioned to the District’s lower levels of economic productivity in some areas. Statistics on the consumption of fuel by the transport sector tend to support this reasoning as 69% of fuel is consumed by the personal sector and 31% by the freight sector 5. Thus, personal outcommuting appears to be a more dominant source of the transport emissions, as opposed to industrial traffic. However, given the overall lower than average levels of carbon emissions from the transport sector it is apparent that out-commuting is less of an issue compared with other authorities.6 Despite these lower levels of carbon emissions from transport, there is an Air Quality Management Area in place along the A5 at Bridgtown due to higher than nationally permitted levels of Nitrogen Dioxide in the vicinity. The A5 is a strategic transport route that runs through the District linking the conurbation with the wider sub-region and beyond. Summary As a result of the above analysis it is apparent that a key source of the District’s emissions is the domestic sector, in terms of buildings and to an extent transport (from commuting- although this is comparatively lower than average levels overall). However, the District does have overall lower than national per capita levels of carbon emissions and energy consumption. In terms of other greenhouse gases, the District generally has below national recommended levels, bar areas around the Bridgtown AQMA (although this has shown a reduction in pollution levels). 5 6 http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/statistics/regional/road-transport/page36199.html West Midlands Regional Observatory (2008) Regional Energy Strategy Monitoring 2006 16 Impacts of Climate Change- Key Implications The implications for Cannock Chase District arising from climate change are difficult to quantify as no local level assessment, such as a Local Climate Impacts Profile for the District, has been undertaken and there is a broad uncertainty regarding long-term climate projections in general. However, indicative conclusions can be drawn from projections at the national and sub-regional level. The recent Environment Agency State of the Region (2009) report predicts that, if we continue to discharge large amounts of greenhouse gases, by 2050 in the West Midlands: Annual mean temperatures could rise by up to 2.5ºC Warwickshire and the south east of the region are expected to warm up more than Shropshire and the north of the region Winter rainfall could increase by up to 20% Summer rainfall could decrease by up to 30% Soil moisture could fall by up to 35% The UKCIP (2002) projections provide a series of scenarios for the country based upon ‘low emission’ and ‘high emission’ scenarios. Staffordshire County Council’s (A Hard Rain 2008) analysis suggests the following: Figure 4 Excerpt reproduced from Staffordshire County Council (2008) A Hard Rain- The Implications for Staffordshire 17 In summary, the scenarios indicate that there will be warmer and wetter winters and warmer, drier summers. The implications of this are increased flood risk during winter, droughts during summers and general complications arising from overall higher temperatures. These may include greater risks to vulnerable people from summer heat or the inability of infrastructure such as road surfaces to cope with higher temperatures. The main crucial difference between the low and high scenarios is that under the latter there will be a trend of drier conditions over the course of a year as opposed to a slight increase up to 2050 under the low scenario. More recently, UKCP09 projections have been released which demonstrate the increase in annual average temperatures across the UK when comparing the periods 1961-1900 and 1971-2000. For the period 1961-2000, average daily temperatures in the West Midlands have increased by 1.56 degree Celsius and annual average precipitation has increased by 7.6%, with a 5.2% reduction in summer precipitation. Extreme weather events, such as heat waves and storms, are also predicted to increase in frequency and intensity and are likely to have significant impacts on the natural environment. Revised estimates from UKCP09 provide further evidence of predicted climate change and key findings for the West Midlands, 2080s (based upon a medium emissions scenario) include: An estimated increase in winter mean temperature of 2.9ºC (it is very unlikely to be less than 1.6ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 4.4ºC); An estimated increase in summer mean temperature of 3.7ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 2ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 6.1ºC; a) An estimated increase in winter mean precipitation of 18%; it is very unlikely to be less than 3% and is very unlikely to be more than 39%; An estimated decrease in summer mean precipitation of –20%; it is very unlikely to be less than –43% and is very unlikely to be more than 6% These new projections are broadly in line with early ones as outlined above. In spite of these national, regional and county estimates there needs to be recognition that local variations will occur. In terms of the impacts of these changes, various potential outcomes have been proposed at a national and regional level. DEFRA UK Climate Change Projections (2009) highlight the wideranging impact upon not just the physical environment via increased flooding for example, but also the wider economic and social implications. For instance, climate change will impact upon agriculture and thus the food chain; it could also lead to greater opportunities in the tourism industry with warmer winters and summers. The Potential Impacts of Climate Change in the West Midlands (2004) suggests that five key areas in the region require consideration: 1. Water management- Reduced precipitation over the summer could result in increased water demand and stress on resources for water supply management, in particular in the drier Vale of Evesham area; there could be increased demand for irrigation due to higher soil moisture deficits in the summer. One study for the Midlands suggests that this increase could be as much as 23%. 18 Where water surpluses over the winter months can be controlled, this may represent an opportunity for attracting investment from other parts of the UK where more extreme water shortages are predicted (e.g. the South East); urban drainage systems, in particular those in Birmingham, may not be able to accommodate intense precipitation in the winter; increased winter rainfall could have potential benefits for winter recharge to reservoirs and groundwater such as the Shropshire Groundwater Scheme. 2. Agriculture- Increased precipitation and precipitation intensity during the winter could limit the use of land for agriculture due to an increased risk of flooding; reduction in quality and quantity of grass caused by lower rainfall and higher temperatures during summer may require feed for livestock to be supplemented; there could be a reduction in yields of fruit, vegetables and cereals that do not have as much water during the growing period; some crops may flourish due to higher temperatures and increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; changing climate conditions could make it possible to grow alternative crops, including crops for energy. 3. Energy- Milder temperatures could reduce demand for energy to provide heating during winter months; lower winter fuel demand associated with higher winter temperatures could reduce the number of households in fuel poverty; the risk of damage to infrastructure from freezing weather and ice could be reduced during milder winters; higher summer temperatures could increase the demand for energy for cooling (air conditioning and refrigeration). 4. Land use and the built environment -Urban developments without adequate drainage could be at increased risk of flooding during periods of intense winter rainfall; buildings could be at increased risk of damage from subsidence of clay soils during periods of low rainfall in the summer; changes in climate variables could result in greater opportunities for forestry and may increase land used for trees; there may be an increased demand for green, open spaces in urban areas, especially in warm summer months. 5. Transport- Flooding during periods of intense winter rainfall could damage the foundations of roads, railways and runways; increased winter precipitation and precipitation intensity could increase the risk of flooding on roads and runways with poor drainage; increased summer temperatures may increase the risk of tarmac on roads and runways melting; milder winter temperatures could reduce the need to grit roads, with fewer road accidents from ice. The affects of these changes are difficult to quantify at the local level, however some inferences can be made by drawing upon the characteristics of the County and District. Drawing upon national projections of impacts, Staffordshire County Council7 highlights the potential benefits including: - 7 Reduced occurrences of vulnerable people to fuel poverty and winter cold; Reducing heating bills in winter; Reduced need for gritting and less snow or ice related traffic accidents. Potential for changes in biodiversity and new species in areas such as Cannock Chase and the Staffordshire Moorlands. Increased tourism opportunities and longer growing periods resulting in higher farm productivity due to warmer summers. ‘A Hard Rain’ (2008) and Local Climate Impacts Profile (2010) 19 However, the potentially adverse affects include: - increased costs due to increased occurrences of flooding; higher risks to vulnerable people due to hotter summers; loss of crop production due to prolonged droughts; losses of biodiversity as species are unable to adapt quickly enough to climate change. The Staffordshire Local Climate Impacts Profile (2010) produced by Staffordshire County Council highlights that severe weather occurrences appear to have increased in recent years with all types of severe weather having an impact on the County. However flooding due to heavy rain has been the biggest problem, with snowfall and wind damage having the next most significant effect. In terms of more local level implications, the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2008) for the District provides information on potential future flood risks arising from climate change. In general terms this highlights a greater extent of potential vulnerability to flooding occurrences from rising water levels in rives and streams due to climate change (fluvial flood risk). This is particularly apparent in areas around the A5 at Bridgtown, in and around Rugeley Town Centre. There are also other potential sources of flooding in the form of surface water run-off from roads and from drainage systems. The Phase 1 Surface Water Management Plan (2010) highlights areas of risk from surface water flooding across much of the District, with the Cannock area having the highest level of risk overall. Increased severe weather events could have implications in terms of the capacity of the existing drainage network. It is therefore evident that there are areas in the district at risk of flooding from rivers and artificial sources. Given the predicted increase in winter rainfall and severe weather events this risk is likely to increase. The Council has already undertaken emergency planning exercises for some of these areas known to be at risk of repeated flooding. Given the District’s wealth of national and internationally important biodiversity sites, the ability of these habitats to adapt to future climate change needs to be a paramount consideration. Whilst the precise impacts of climate change on the District’s ecology is not fully known, it is recommended through best practice guidance that local authorities seek to protect and strengthen existing habitats so that wildlife has the best chance to adapt to the changes. The Staffordshire Local Climate Impacts Profile (2010) highlights the potential positive and negative effects, particularly in terms of the invaluable Cannock Chase area i.e. the potential for new species and well as the risk of new diseases that thrive in warm conditions affecting the existing wildlife. In order to gauge the potential impact of future development upon important biodiversity sites, the District in partnership with other Staffordshire authorities, has commissioned an Appropriate Assessment (as per EU Regulations). This provides an assessment of the potential impact in terms of air quality, water abstraction and recreational pressures. Whilst climate change is not a specific consideration, inferences could be drawn from the findings of this study. For instance longer periods of warmer summers and winters could increase the demand for recreational activities on Cannock Chase, increasing pressure upon sensitive ecological areas. As such there is a need to ensure people have access to a range of alternative recreational sites to relieve pressure upon more sensitive areas. Whilst wetter winters could bring benefits in terms of increased water supply there are also potential issues with drier summers resulting in demand exceeding supply. The State of the Region Report- Climate Change (2008) highlights that the West Midlands is one of the drier regions 20 with below national average annual rainfall, and Cannock Chase District average rainfall is also below the national average. It is estimated that a 1.1 degree rise in temperature by 2025 could result in a 5% increase in average per capita water demand (State of the Region-Climate Change 2008 p13), although current domestic water consumption in the West Midlands is around 132 litres per person per day, compared to the UK average of 150 litres per day. The Water Cycle Study (2010) commissioned as part of the evidence base for the Core Strategy highlights that water supplies are sufficient for the District over the plan period (based upon South Staffs Water Resources Plan which factors in the potential impacts of climate change). However, this is dependent upon a range of complimentary measures such as improved water efficiency standards on homes. The study recommends that the local authorities consider requiring water efficiency standards equivalent to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 as a minimum. In terms of geology, a large proportion of the District consists of coal measures and sandstone, as demonstrated by the areas mining legacy. There are also areas of clay measures around the District8. As a result of this mixed geological composition it may be that the District is not as prone to subsidence from drying clay in some areas, but it may be in others. As a result, at the sitespecific scale developments will need to assess the potential risk in terms of climate change affecting the underlying geology. Subsidence arising from a decrease in soil moisture will have an impact District wide and new developments will need to consider how to deal with this risk in the future. Whilst the District has concentrations of populations within urban centres it is not as high-density development compared with more urban, city authorities. Therefore urban heat island effects may not be so acute; however there is a need to consider the impact of higher temperatures generally in the design of new developments to reduce any such effects in the future. For instance, as noted above warmer winters and summers could increase demand for recreational activities and shading during summer. The provision of green spaces is therefore key to adapting to a changed climate. Given its semi-rural character, the District is home to a number of agricultural operations. These farms are involved in crop production, for both food and commercial purposes. As a result of a changed climate some of these businesses may be particularly vulnerable to change. For example summer droughts are likely to affect the ability of these businesses to continue cultivating their traditional crops. There may be a need to support diversification into other crops or different business ventures associated with agricultural economies in order to assist transition. The Water Cycle Study (2010) also highlights that new agricultural operations, or large commercial operations requiring large volumes of water, may encounter difficulties in obtaining increases in supply due to restrictions upon abstraction licences to protect the environmental quality. These issues will need to be considered on a scheme-by-scheme basis. Summary Key issues for the District relate to the need to ensure that the area’s habitats are resilient to adapt to future climate change and that future water use is sustainable. There are also specific concerns related to flood risk in certain areas of the District. Future climate changes may result in buildings and places experiencing over-heating and better design will need to address this. Staffordshire Geodiversity Action Plan 2006; Staffordshire Waste and Minerals Core Strategy Issues and Options 2008 8 21 3. Capacity of Cannock Chase District to respond to climate change The Core Strategy must ensure that the chosen directions of growth and the policies for new developments ensure climate change is being tackled via reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to a different climate. A key way in which the planning system can address the causes of climate change is via the adoption of policies which seek to ensure that carbon emissions are reduced in future developments, and if possible in the existing building stock. The Sustainability Appraisal of the Core Strategy (2009/10) assesses the performance of the proposed planning policies against a series of sustainable development objectives, one of which is to ‘understand and adapt to the effects of climate change- including flooding’. Another climate change key objective is to ‘increase renewable energy production in the district and reduce carbon emissions and air pollution from power generation’. There are also a number of complementary objectives, such as tackling a lack of public transport and promoting sustainable water use. There are a series of unknown effects at present; however in broad terms the Core Strategy to date performs well in relation to the climate change and overall Sustainability Appraisal objectives. For instance by focusing development upon the existing urban areas, (with urban extensions in places), carbon emissions can be reduced by increasing the viability of public transport systems. It also assists adaptation to climate change by avoiding some key areas at risk of flooding and helping to protect more sensitive wildlife habitats at and beyond the urban fringes. However, it is noted that increased development in the District will need to be carefully considered in light of water supply, pressures upon wildlife and that development within the urban areas could exacerbate flood risk in some places if not managed appropriately. Annex 1 illustrates how the impacts of climate change have been considered using the examples of some of the District’s proposed strategic sites. These physical considerations are expanded upon in more detail below. In addition to considering the impact of directions of growth, the planning system needs to consider how it can assist the development of new buildings and schemes that contribute towards climate change mitigation and adaptation. This has most commonly been done in terms of setting targets and thresholds for the inclusion of improved energy efficiency and renewable energy into a development or other sustainable construction requirements. The analysis of carbon emissions suggests that the District’s largest carbon emitting sector is the domestic one, with gas being the main source of emissions from domestic energy use. Given that the majority of the stock already in existence will still be in use by 2050, there is also a need to focus policy responses upon the retrofitting of this stock. However, a key challenge is to set a policy framework that allows for feasible implementation and this requires account to be taken of physical and financial viability considerations. This section sets out the key information in relation to physical factors and financial considerations in order to inform policy development (having regard to the PPS1 Supplement). Physical considerations: Service accessibility, public transport and infrastructure provision As part of the evidence base to support the Core Strategy, Staffordshire County Council has undertaken ‘accession modelling’ in order to further inform decision-making. This calculates journey times based upon public transport timetable data, road network information and a range of user-defined parameters. Distances have been calculated in relation to proximity to employment; primary schools; secondary schools; further education colleges; hospitals; GP surgeries; and supermarkets. The analysis highlights the general accessibility of the urban areas, with Norton 22 Canes representing the least accessible compared with the more densely populated Rugeley/Brereton and Cannock/Hednesford/Heath Hayes urban areas. It also highlights the potential need for further public transport and other service provisions should specific sites be taken forward for development. As part of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) to accompany the Core Strategy the need for additional service provision has been considered and this is an ongoing process in collaboration with the service providers. At present the IDP highlights the potential need for additional new primary school provision at land west of Pye Green Road (and funding for other existing schools to accommodate places across the District); investment in water infrastructure from new developments to serve growth in the District; key transport priorities and other measures such as open space provision. Research suggests that 79.8% of households in Cannock are within 350m of a half hourly or better service (former Local Area Agreement N175 Indicator 2009/10). The Staffordshire Local Transport Plan 2006-2011(currently under review) provides a strategic context for the District to improve its public transport connections. It includes a number of sustainable transport proposals including upgrades to the National Cycle Network in the District. The reduction of carbon emissions from transport is partly reliant upon the planned development of the District taking an approach that allows for increased viability of public transport networks and reduced reliance upon the private car The Core Strategy seeks to address these aims by providing as much development as possible within the existing urban areas that are the focus of the existing public transport hubs. For instance, ambitions for the upgrade of the Walsall-Rugeley Chase Line railway, with existing railway stations at Cannock, Hednesford and Rugeley will be supported by growth in these centres, as will ambitions for bus station upgrades. The Core Strategy also sets a priority of reducing out commuting and increasing job density within the District to assist economic regeneration. This compliments the need to reduce emissions from transport which appears to arise primarily from commuting. Developments are already required to consider contributions towards improved public transport and other sustainable transport measures via Green Travel Plans, which are a key policy tool for helping to tackle overall carbon emissions from transport. Physical considerations: Green Infrastructure and Flood Risk The role of green infrastructure has already been highlighted as a key part of the response to both mitigating and adapting to climate change. The Green Infrastructure Assessment (2011) considers the role green spaces have to play in tackling climate change and highlights key areas for conservation and enhancement as part of the strategic approach for the Core Strategy. It incorporates findings from a range of green infrastructure-related assessments. It identifies that 60% of the District is designated Green Belt and it is home to the Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Green Belt forms various important functions in terms of supporting wildlife habitats and corridors, contributing to the landscape character as well as preventing the coalescence of urban areas. Within the urban areas there is a locally designated Green Space Network that seeks to maintain green open spaces and corridors throughout the District’s built environment, linking to the larger spaces. The District is also covered by the Forest of Mercia designation (one of twelve Community Forests in England) that aims to increase access to woodland for local communities. The Assessment refers to the PPG17 study of the District’s open spaces which contributes to the setting of targets for provision and quality of spaces and recognises the importance of small to 23 large scale sites to the overall network (the locally designated Green Space Network). It also highlights that the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments for the District have identified key areas of existing open spaces that should be retained for flooding purposes and have outlined the future role of Sustainable Drainage Systems (often ‘green’ solutions) in development areas that may be at risk of flooding. For instance there are existing flood management schemes at Mill Green Nature Reserve incorporating green infrastructure to alleviate flood risk. The findings of the Appropriate Assessment for the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation are discussed in terms of the potential impact of development upon biodiversity and its recommendations include the potential need for increased green infrastructure provision in the form of alternative recreation spaces. This strategic approach will need to be taken forward through the Local Development Framework on a cross-boundary basis to ensure sufficient green infrastructure provision that helps tackle climate change as part of its multi-functional role. The Green Infrastructure Assessment identifies a series of ways in which the green infrastructure of the District can be enhanced via development schemes as well as key initiatives. For instance, schemes can incorporate new open spaces and native species to strengthen biodiversity habitats whilst larger scale initiatives such as the Forest of Mercia or the former Regional Biodiversity Enhancement Area (to strengthen heathland between Cannock Chase and Sutton Park) can also help strengthen habitats to enable them to adapt to climate change. In specific relation to flood risk, whilst the strategic approach avoids high-risk flood zones as far as possible given the historical growth of the District there are areas of existing development that lie within such zones. For instances, in Bridgtown there are a number of established Brownfield, industrial sites that lie within higher-risk flood zones and may come forward for redevelopment. In such cases, the implementation of flood risk alleviation and mitigation measures may be needed as part of specific development proposals to minimise impacts and a sequential approach employed. It is recognised that by focusing development upon the urban areas this can exacerbate the effects of flooding and urban heating unless appropriately managed. Therefore it is important to ensure effective green infrastructure and flood management provision at the site level scale, with consideration of the impact upon the wider catchment area. The opportunities offered by urban extensions to deal with these issues as part of larger master planning exercises should also be recognised. Physical considerations: Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Potential A County-wide study for Staffordshire on the potential for renewable and low carbon energy generation in the District highlights the key role that the new and existing built stock has to play in reducing carbon emissions via alternative energy generation and improved energy efficiency. Given the physical constraints of the District there is relatively limited potential for larger scale schemes such as wind energy due to sensitive environmental designations as well as proximity to dwellings and the availability of natural resources e.g. watercourses to fuel hydro power schemes. Figures 5 and 6 demonstrate the energy opportunities and carbon reduction potential. There is a base and elevated case to illustrate the differences a more proactive approach could achieve (the elevated case). 24 Figure 5 Excerpt from Staffordshire County-wide Renewable/Low Carbon Energy Study, Camco (September 2010) demonstrating potential energy production and carbon abatement Figure 6 Excerpt from Staffordshire County-wide Renewable/Low Carbon Energy Study, Camco (September 2010) demonstrating key potential energy opportunities 25 It highlights that the District could potentially generate over 12% of its energy demand from renewable sources by 2025/6 under the elevated scenario. This could then result in a carbon abatement of 0.55 tonnes per capita. Although indicative hydropower opportunities are highlighted on the map, the data for the capacity of these resources was not available at the time of the study (based upon draft Environment Agency data). The existing built environment could contribute via retrofitting measures whilst the new developments contribute via the increasingly higher standards of carbon reduction (via Building Regulations). The strategic approach of the Core Strategy works to compliment these opportunities in terms of locating development as far as possible within the urban areas, which subsequently increases the potential viability of district heating/combined heat and power solutions. The wind potential area is also located nearby an employment area which could compliment one another. As highlighted in Section 3 the existing domestic sector is the primary source of carbon emissions and is marginally higher than regional and national averages. This may arise from the level of efficiency of the existing built stock, for instance there are a number of ‘pre-cast reinforced concrete’ housing estates arising from the mining legacy and social sector within the District, which generally are poor quality in terms of energy efficiency. Redevelopment and retrofitting works have been underway for such estates which will enhance their performance. Under the Home and Energy Conservation Act (1995) local authorities with housing responsibilities are required to improve the energy efficiency of accommodation in their area. In Cannock Chase there has been an overall improvement of 25% since 1996 and the Council is on track to meet its 2011 target of a 30% improvement via measures such as improved insulation. There are also local examples of private individuals enhancing the performance of their homes. For instance two properties in Cannock Wood have been renovated via installation of solid wall insulation; air source heat pumps; wood pellet central heating; and recycled rain water systems (amongst other measures). Physical Considerations: Overall Sustainable Construction Whilst renewable energy and energy efficiency is a major part of the drive towards reducing carbon emissions and tackling climate change, this is only one part of the overall response. Consideration needs to be given to adaptation to climate change, as referred to under the preceding discussion regarding green infrastructure and flood risk. The Code for Sustainable Homes does incorporate measures which are targeted at adapting to climate change such as a reduction in water use per person and addressing flood risk. However, as discussed above there are also other, wider considerations to be taken into account such as biodiversity or potential urban heat island effects arising from increased temperatures. There is a range of guidance available related to the adaptation of places to climate change. The Town and Country Planning Association 2007 ‘Climate Change: Adaptation by Design’ provides comprehensive coverage of the potential issues and solutions via sustainable construction. It highlights the site specific nature of climate change adaptation solutions: “Adaptation decisions will be influenced by location. It is important to recognise the relationship between large-scale strategic adaptation strategies at the conurbation scale (e.g. networks of open spaces) and smaller scale options (e.g. orientation of individual buildings). Higher densities in urban areas will exacerbate some climatic risks (e.g. thermal discomfort, health and urban flash flooding), but these risks will also create opportunities by highlighting the need for development of 26 high quality green spaces and innovative use of layout and urban form. Suburban areas characterised by lower densities offer more versatile spaces for developing adaptation solutions. Rural-urban fringes, where densities are likely to be low, provide space for large scale strategies such as strategic green space infrastructure and flood storage” (TCPA 2007 p17). It provides a range of potential design solutions to higher temperatures; increased flood risk; managing water resources and accounting for ground conditions. For instance, the provision of green open spaces can assist urban cooling, as well as providing potential flood storage areas. Particular building materials that have a cooling effect and are able to retain heat in winter or absorb water rather than repel it (resulting in lower flood risk) can also be applied. ‘Green roofs’ are increasing in popularity due to their absorption qualities as well as their ability to retain heat during winter and provide cooling in summer. In terms of helping wildlife adapt to climate change they can also serve a purpose by providing urban habitats or form part of a ‘wildlife corridor’. Sustainable Drainage Systems are a key tool for helping to reduce flood risk and can help improve water quality. They can be applied in a variety of ways, for example by the use of permeable ground and paving materials that allow water absorption or via the use of balancing ponds incorporated into green open spaces. The over-riding principle of such systems is to reduce the speed at which rainwater and drainage reaches the rivers, thus reducing the risk of flash flooding. They can have wider benefits i.e. a balancing pond is able to act as a wildlife haven and can provide amenity space as part of a developments wider open space provision. Local examples of such solutions can be seen at Kingswood Lakeside Business Park and Mill Green/Hawks Green Local Nature Reserve. In the District, recent redevelopments of Council housing stock at Bevan Lee, Cannock have achieved EcoHomes ‘Very Good’ level, which is broadly equivalent to Level 3 of the Code. Developments at Brereton and Hednesford, developed by South Staffs Housing Association, have achieved Level 4 of the Code (44% reduction in carbon emissions over 2006 levels). This has been achieved via the installation of renewable air heat pumps; enhanced insulated building fabric; 100% of internal lights to be dedicated as low energy; cycle stores in the form of sheds; and home offices in some bedrooms. Internal water consumption will be reduced to 105 litres/person/day and is achieved by a dual flush toilet and flow restrictors in appliances. Points towards the Code have also been achieved by providing internal recycling bins in the kitchens; using a site waste management plan to sort, re-use and recycle construction waste and by providing a composter in the gardens. However, there appears to be no current information on private-sector led housing developments achieving higher than current building regulation standards in relation to sustainable design. Several recent commercial schemes such as a Gazeley scheme at Rugeley and the Former Hawkin’s Tile Works in Cannock have achieved higher standards of sustainable construction. The latter scheme has responded to potential flood risk (existing and arising from climate change) through the alteration of floor levels and the incorporation of Sustainable Drainage systems. This includes the use of a balancing pond and swale style landscaping in areas of the site within higher flood zone categories. The Gazeley development has incorporated a range of sustainable construction materials to exceed building regulation standards. At present, the Council encourages partner commercial developments to achieve BREEAM levels of ‘Very Good’ as a minimum. 27 As already outlined there are also local examples of homes being retrofitted with sustainable construction features such as grey rainwater recycling systems. The above examples demonstrate that sustainable construction can be achieved in principle in the District. The application of such measures is more likely to be dependent upon the site-specific physical characteristics and overall District-wide financial viability considerations (discussed further below). The Water Cycle Study (2010) identifies that there are very few restrictions on the potential use of SUDs in relation to Ground Water Vulnerability areas and Source Protection Zones Districtwide. However, the type of SUDS on developments within Rugeley could be restricted because of these designations affecting parts of the area. There are still solutions available but schemes will need to assess these in relation to the vulnerability of the area. Summary As referred to above, there are a series of potential constraints which could serve to restrict the incorporation of renewable energy technologies in the District particularly related to the AONB, its landscape character and biological characteristics (there are a series of SACs, SSSIs and SBIs within the District). The data on renewable energy potential within the District highlights that wind, district heating with Combined Heat and Power and microgeneration technologies, particularly biomass, are potential local viable sources of supply. The examples referred to within the District demonstrate that some of these technologies can be applied successfully in Cannock Chase, but obviously further assessments are required for individual schemes due to site specific considerations. There is no evidence to suggest that other aspects of sustainable are in principle physically restricted in the District, with the exception of the type of SUDS solutions in Rugeley. The application of such measures is more likely to be dependent upon the site-specific physical characteristics and overall District-wide financial viability considerations (discussed further below). The overall spatial strategy proposed, by focusing upon the existing urban areas and Brownfield sites (with selected urban extensions) is an appropriate response to climate change in terms of the renewable energy evidence; service accessibility; the risks of flooding and protecting key areas of green infrastructure within and beyond the urban areas. For instance, the renewable energy evidence highlights the greater viability of CHP systems within urban areas of higher densities. However, it is apparent that further measures will need to be undertaken at a site-specific level in order to provide the appropriate infrastructure provision to support developments, including green spaces, flood risk management and public transport connections (See Annex 1). Economic and Financial considerations Alongside the environmental and social benefits of planning for climate change there are also wider economic advantages to be considered. As per the Stern Report (2006), the costs of acting now are far less then the future potential costs if no action is taken. However, it is recognised that there concerns about costs and site-specific financial viability for new developments. This section considers the economic and financial considerations at a local level. 28 The Staffordshire Local Climate Impacts Profile (2010) outlines the impact of severe weather upon public services both in terms of them responding to incidents and having to address damage caused to public assets. Whilst specific costs cannot be directly attributed to climate change it does highlight the general impact of severe weather events in cost terms across the County, and severe weather events are likely to increase as discussed above. Analysis of the local employment profile9 demonstrates that the District has above average concentrations of manufacturing and construction based employment. An assessment of the potential future opportunities for employment growth in the District highlights that although traditional manufacturing employment if forecast to decline, there are a number of high growth and emerging manufacturing sectors, where there is a close fit with Cannock’s strong manufacturing capabilities and a current gap in supply industries. These include sustainable construction product manufacture; sustainable energy product and system manufacture; sustainable transport component manufacture and other environmental technologies. Although not referred to in this analysis there could also be potential benefits arising for the construction sector in terms of developing new skills for sustainable construction, setting local suppliers apart from others elsewhere. In terms of financial implications for developments the emphasis is upon examining the impact of policy that requires certain levels of on-site renewable energy generation or sustainable construction standards. Whilst it is recognised that the other measures to tackle climate change, such as providing appropriate green and public transport infrastructure will require financial investment, it is beyond the scope of this background paper to fully consider such issues. These issues are primarily considered via the Core Strategy Infrastructure Delivery Plan. In 2010 a review of the cost of the Code for Sustainable Homes was undertaken based upon a limited number of practical examples to date. This identified the extra-over cost from a baseline cost of constructing a 2006 Building Regulations compliant dwelling. The results highlighted significant variations between dwelling types and development scenarios however typical average extra costs are summarised in Figure 7. Code Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 Percentage extra cost over 2006 Building Regulations < 1% 1 - 2% 3 - 4% 6 - 8% 25 - 30% 30 - 40% Figure 7 Summary of Code for Sustainable Homes costs, Cyril Sweet (2010) This assessment makes a number of assumptions about the future costs of technologies and solutions employed on site to achieve Code ratings. It also does not account for the altered version of ‘zero-carbon’ under discussion which is expected to reduce costs for Code level 5-6. It identifies 9 Cannock Chase Strategic Economic Development Support (Optimat 2008) 29 that the highest costs typically come from meeting the energy requirements of the Code. From Code level 3-4 the most economical solutions are likely to require some element of renewable or low carbon energy generation. For the water section, up to Code Level 3 there are no additional costs identified however for Code level 3 costs can be approximately £200-240. In terms of non-domestic buildings, assessments have been carried out by Cyril Sweett (2005) of the Code equivalent for commercial properties- BREEAM ratings. This estimates that to reach an ‘excellent’ rating for offices build costs are increased by around 2.5% - 7%. Lower level ratings such as ‘pass’ or ‘good’ can be achieved with no additional cost. For other developments such as schools or health centres the additional costs are also minimal. More recent research (BREEAM 2008) specifically focused upon schools highlights that BREEAM ratings can be achieved for 1.7%8.6% additional build cost, depending on the location. Some schemes have demonstrated that higher BREEAM levels can be achieved without any additional cost, such as Cardiff Library10. Most recently Gazeley have achieved the first ever BREEAM ‘Outstanding’ rating for a logistic warehouse in Chatterley Valley, Staffordshire- this is the highest level possible and has been achieved via renewable energy production, improved energy efficiency measures and water grey water recycling (amongst other measures). It should be noted that estimates of costs for commercial schemes are more difficult than those for residential given the bespoke nature of these as opposed to the fairly standardised nature of dwellings. Related to the wider economic and social benefits, research does highlight the potential fuel saving benefits as a result of achieving the Code Levels compared with dwellings built to 2006 building regulations standards, which could be marketed to prospective buyers (see Figure 8). There isn’t any similar information available for commercial schemes at present. However, anecdotally lower running costs will be attractive to potential occupiers and they may as a result be willing to pay higher rates in return for such savings and green credentials. Such incentives may also be of particular interest to the District given the relative levels of deprivation- fuel poverty in the District could be alleviated via the construction of more efficient dwellings. Figure 8 Potential fuel bill savings from Code levels, Cyrill Sweet (2010) Whilst the potential costs savings to be made by householders and small businesses from switching energy sources have been highlighted it has also been noted that “most local energy technologies are currently too expensive to have mass market appeal compared to other means of supplying domestic energy needs. Calculation of the payback periods on these technologies is fraught with difficulty and likely to give misleading figures” (Select Committee Trade and Industry First Report 2007). This means that there is uncertainty over the impact of requiring installation of 10 http://www.breeam.org/newsdetails.jsp?id=557 30 renewable technologies on existing buildings. However, recent changes to the General Permitted Development Order, which relax the need for planning permission for small scale renewable’s, does reduce some costs for installation. There are also a number of government grant schemes which people can access to promote such technologies or other energy efficiency saving measures11. In terms of the potential costs of energy efficiency improvements, indicative information from the Energy Savings Trust12 (see Figure 9) suggests that there is a range of options available varying in cost and payback periods. There are relatively cheap, straight forward options available such as tank insulation and draught proofing and more expensive options such as solid wall insulation. The assessments are based upon a number of assumptions and should only be used as guidancecosts will vary (sometimes substantially) on a house-by-house basis. Again, there are also a series of grants available for such works which aren’t fully factored in. Energy Efficiency Improvement Cavity Wall insulation Solid Wall insulation Floor insulation Loft insulation (0-270mm) Loft insulation (increase from 50mm to 270mm) Draught proofing Tanks and pipes insulation Glazing Boiler Improvements CO2 saving House (tonnes) 0.6 1.8-1.9 0.3-0.4 0.7 per Cost per House Annual Saving £250- 500 £5,500-14,500 £120 £50-350 £110 £365-385 £70 £145 0.2 £50-350 £40 0.1 0.2 £100-200 £25 £25-100 £45 0.7 0.3-1 £2,500-6,500 £2,500 £130 £65-225 Figure 9 Indicative costs on improving energy efficiency in existing homes, Energy Savings Trust (2010) Uttlesford District Council has implemented a policy requirement for energy efficiency improvements as part of householder applications (see further information below). This example demonstrates that such a policy can work in principle so long as there is not an undue burden on residents on a case-by-case basis. The consequential improvements already required under Building Regulations to commercial developments over 1,000m2 as part of extension works state a level of no more than 10% of the overall build cost for improvements to overcome such issues. In terms of a more local analysis, the Cannock Chase Council Affordable Housing Viability Study (2009) considers the financial viability of the Council’s proposed affordable housing targets in terms of its impact on new development sites in the future. As part of these calculations, the study allows for a degree of higher construction standards in line with national cost estimates (Code Level 3 plus a 10% on-site renewable energy requirement) and concludes that new developments would still be viable in principle, taking into account other contributions e.g. towards open space. The 11 12 http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/What-can-I-do-today/Energy-saving-grants-and-offers/ http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Home-improvements-and-products/Home-insulation-glazing 31 Staffordshire-wide Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Study (2010) recommends that the local authorities set a ‘carbon targets framework’ which requires developments to reduce carbon emissions via renewable energy technologies specifically. This highlights that taking into account potential financial rewards from feed-in-tariffs etc the additional costs of such requirements could range from 0-7% above the standard building regulations costs (the baselines of 2010 and 2013 regulations were used) dependent upon the nature of the dwellings and scheme. The financial implications of requiring developments to retrofit as part of alterations to existing properties can be drawn upon to an extent from costs assessments of the Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM ratings. However, these will vary on a site by site basis dependent upon the existing characteristics of the site (e.g. a high ecological value or high flood risk site will require more measures than low ones); therefore there is no local information available on this. It should be noted that additional costs arising from purely adaptation measures could more than likely be negated by ensuring adaptation to climate change is considered from the start, as opposed to retrofitting (TCPA 2007). The viability of requiring energy efficiency improvements on existing dwellings will be very sensitive to the nature of the scheme and the individual financial circumstances of the applicant; therefore no local information is available on this. Summary Economic benefits could accrue given the nature of the District’s economic profile in terms of tapping into a growth sector for sustainable construction and also in terms of addressing fuel poverty issues, often associated with areas of deprivation. Whilst the costs of the impacts of climate change are difficult to quantify it is highlighted that there are implications for public service provision and assets. The financial implications of sustainable construction standards for new developments and/or the retrofitting of existing properties are uncertain to an extent (the more comprehensive data is available for the Code for Sustainable Homes levels for new dwellings). However evidence from the Affordable Housing Viability Assessment suggests at present Code Level 3 and an onsite renewable energy target of 10% is viable when taking other factors, namely affordable housing contributions, into consideration. Recent examples of sustainable developments achieving high standards demonstrate the feasibility of implementation in principle. Other Local Authority Examples Various authorities around the UK have adopted specific climate change policies. Below are some examples for consideration. 1) Richmond Borough Council have adopted a ‘Reducing Carbon Emissions’ policy that requires all new developments to achieve a 20% reduction in carbon emissions from on-site renewable energy generation unless it can be demonstrated that such provision is not feasible, and by promoting its use in existing development. This policy also requires that new and existing developments should seek to minimise their energy consumption. The Council have also adopted an ‘Adapting to the Effects’ policy which requires new developments to take account of the impacts of climate change in terms of water and drainage; the need for summer cooling; risk of subsidence; flood risk. This was supported by an evidence base that assessed the renewable energy potential in the District and the economic viability of the targets set. 32 2) Dover Council has taken policy forward further by broadening the coverage to include extensions to properties and requiring off-site compensation in some circumstances: “New residential development permitted after the adoption of the Strategy should meet Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 (or any future national equivalent), at least Code level 4 from 1 April 2013 and at least Code level 5 from 1 April 2016. New non-residential buildings over 1,000 square metres gross floorspace permitted after adoption of the Strategy should meet BREEAM very good standard (or any future national equivalent). Residential and non-residential extensions and conversions should incorporate energy and water efficiency measures that are designed to achieve no net increase in energy or water demand from the whole building. Developments that are unable to meet these standards and non-residential developments under 1,000 square metres gross floorspace must achieve commensurate energy and water savings elsewhere in the District.” 3) Uttlesford District Council has adopted a Supplementary Planning Document on Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (2007). This builds upon the existing Local Plan Policy GEN2 – Design which states: “Development will not be permitted unless its design meets all the following criteria and has regard to adopted Supplementary Design Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents. a) It is compatible with the scale, form, layout, appearance and materials of surrounding buildings; b) It safeguards important environmental features in its setting, enabling their retention and helping to reduce the visual impact of new buildings or structures where appropriate; c) It provides an environment, which meets the reasonable needs of all potential users. d) It helps to reduce the potential for crime; e) It helps to minimise water and energy consumption; f) It has regard to guidance on layout and design adopted as supplementary planning guidance to the development plan. g) It helps to reduce waste production and encourages recycling and reuse. h) It minimises the environmental impact on neighbouring properties by appropriate mitigating measures. i) It would not have a materially adverse effect on the reasonable occupation and enjoyment of a residential or other sensitive property, as a result of loss of privacy, loss of daylight, overbearing impact or overshadowing. The Supplementary Planning Document goes further and outlines that “The Council will negotiate to achieve a three star rating on new development up to 2012. After this the Council will encourage all development to achieve a four star rating up to 2016 when all development will be expected to be zero carbon with a six star rating.” In relation to extensions “where a property is proposed to be extended the Council will expect cost effective energy efficiency measures to be carried out on the existing house. Applicants are asked to complete and submit a home energy assessment form and are notified of energy savings measures that the Council will require as part of the conditions of 33 granting planning permission for the extension. In relation to renewable energy “The Council will encourage developers to provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirements for the development from on site renewables or low carbon energy sources in all developments larger than 1,000m2 or five homes.” 4) Sheffield Council has adopted a number of climate change policies in its Core Strategy including: “All new buildings and conversions of existing buildings must be designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and function in a changing climate. All developments will be required to: a. achieve a high standard of energy efficiency; and b. make the best use of solar energy, passive heating and cooling, natural light, and natural ventilation; and c. minimise the impact on existing renewable energy installations, and produce renewable energy to compensate for any loss in generation from existing installations as a result of the development. All new buildings and conversions of existing buildings must be designed to use resources sustainably. This includes, but is not limited to: d. minimising water consumption and maximising water re-cycling; e. re-using existing buildings and vacant floors wherever possible; f. designing buildings flexibly from the outset to allow a wide variety of possible future uses; g. using sustainable materials wherever possible and making the most sustainable use of other materials; h. minimising waste and promoting recycling, during both construction and occupation. To satisfy the policy, all new developments of 5 dwellings or over (including apartments) should achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 (or equivalent) as a minimum, and all non-residential developments over 500 sq m gross internal floorspace should achieve a BREEAM (BRE Environmental Assessment Method) rating of very good (or equivalent) as a minimum…The required standards to be achieved may increase, and the thresholds decrease, as advances in technology enable higher standards of sustainable design.” “Renewable energy capacity in the city will exceed 12MW by 2010 and 60MW by 2021. The Smithywood and Hesley Wood areas are potential locations for larger-scale wind generation though not to the exclusion of other sustainable locations. Where appropriate, developments will be encouraged to connect to the City Centre District Heating Scheme. Shared energy schemes within large developments or between neighbouring developments, new or existing, will also be encouraged. All significant developments will be required, unless this can be shown not to be feasible and viable, to: a. provide a minimum of 10% of their predicted energy needs from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy; and b. Generate further renewable or low carbon energy or incorporate design measures sufficient to reduce the development’s overall predicted carbon dioxide emissions by 20%. This would include the decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy required to satisfy (a). 34 The renewable or low carbon energy technologies must be operational before any new or converted buildings are occupied. If it can be demonstrated that the required reduction in carbon emissions cannot be met through decentralised renewable or low carbon energy and/or design and specification measures, a contribution towards an off-site carbon reduction scheme may be acceptable.” “The extent and impact of flooding will be reduced by: a. requiring that all developments significantly limit surface water run-off; b. requiring the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems or sustainable drainage techniques on all sites where feasible and practicable; c. promoting sustainable drainage management, particularly in rural areas; d. not culverting and not building over watercourses wherever practicable; e. encouraging the removal of existing culverting; f. not increasing and, where possible, reducing the building footprint in areas of developed functional floodplain; g. not locating or subdividing properties that would be used for more vulnerable uses in areas of developed functional floodplain; h. developing only water-compatible uses in the functional floodplain; i. designating areas of the city with high probability of flooding for open space uses where there is no overriding case for development; j. developing areas with high probability of flooding only for water-compatible uses unless an overriding case can be made and adequate mitigation measures are proposed; k. ensuring any highly vulnerable uses are not located in areas at risk of flooding; l. ensuring safe access to and from an area with a low probability of flooding. Where an overriding case remains for developing in a zone with high probability of flooding, development will be permitted only if: m. more vulnerable uses, including housing, would be above ground floor level; and n. the lower floor levels of any other development with vulnerable equipment would remain dry in the event of flooding; and o. the building would be resilient to flood damage; and p. adequate on and off-site flood protection measures would be provided. Housing in areas with a high probability of flooding will not be permitted before 2016/17. 7) Plymouth City Council has adopted the following climate change related policies: “The Council will actively promote development which utilises natural resources in as an efficient and sustainable a way as possible. This will include: 1. Meeting high water efficiency standards, and incorporating new technologies to recycle and conserve water resources. 2. Promoting the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes. 3. Requiring all proposals for non-residential developments exceeding 1,000 square metres of gross floorspace, and new residential developments comprising 10 or more units (whether new build or conversion) to incorporate onsite renewable energy production equipment to off-set at least 10% of predicted carbon emissions for the period up to 2010, rising to 15% for the period 20102016. 35 4. Ensuring building design reduces energy consumption by appropriate methods such as high standards of insulation, avoiding development in areas subject to significant effects from shadow, wind and frost, using natural lighting and ventilation, capturing the sun’s heat, where appropriate. 5. Supporting development that minimises the consumption and extraction of minerals by making the greatest possible reuse or recycling of materials in new construction, and by making best use of existing buildings and infrastructure. 6. Supporting development that seeks to minimise waste and facilitates recycling. 7. Ensuring that development and land use in the ‘coastal zone’ responds appropriately to the character of the particular type of coast, in the interests of preserving and making best use of this limited resource. “The Council will support development proposals that avoid areas of current or future flood risk, and which do not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. This will involve a risk based sequential approach to determining the suitability of land for development. Development in high risk flood areas will only be permitted where it meets the following prerequisites: 1. It can be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk. 2. The development should be on previously developed land; if not, there must be no reasonable alternative sites on developable previously developed land. 3. A flood risk assessment has demonstrated that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. In addition development will be required to incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) to manage surface water drainage. The Council will also seek to reduce the increase in flood risk due to climate change through measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions”. 36 5. Summary and Key Conclusions Overall Cannock Chase District has below national and West Midlands’ averages of carbon emissions per capita and energy use per capita. However, domestic per capita carbon emissions are above the regional average and domestic energy consumption (particularly gas consumption) is within the upper quartile of all authorities. The District’s use of renewable energy is below the regional average representing less than 0.1% off all energy supply in Cannock Chase. Other greenhouse gas emissions arising from land use and transport in the District also need to be considered e.g. non-carbon emissions in the Air Quality Management Area at Bridgtown. The Council services represent around 0.7% of the Districts total emissions from all sources. The future impacts of climate change, whilst still not definitive, are increasingly more certain. The most recent projections highlight hotter annual temperatures, increased winter rainfall and reduced summer rainfall. In terms of Cannock Chase District this is likely to have an impact in terms of increased flood risk in areas such as Rugeley town centre and Bridgtown; increased pressure on water supply resources (although demand is not expected to exceed supply); increased sensitivity of biodiversity assets; potential increased pressure on the agricultural economy owing to droughts and increased demands for cooler buildings/open spaces owing to higher annual temperatures. There are also potential benefits, such as boost to the tourism sector and greater agricultural productivity owing to longer growing seasons. Given the nature of the District’s employment profile there are potential benefits arising from the need to tackle the causes and impacts of climate change via sustainable construction methods. The manufacturing and construction sectors could benefit from this growth industry. There are potential costs arising as a result of the impacts of climate change e.g. more severe weather events. There are financial implications for developments within the District in terms of applying sustainable construction standards but it is not considered that these are not a barrier to tackling climate change if a pragmatic approach to site-by-site solutions is taken within an overarching framework. The Council clearly needs to ensure that the growth of the District is sustainable and minimizes both the causes and effects of climate changes. As discussed above, the Sustainability Appraisal of the Core Strategy provides commentary upon the preferred strategic spatial approach and notes its general positive/neutral effect. There are however areas requiring further mitigation such as potential developments in flood risk areas or minimisation of the effects on biodiversity at the site specific scale. In addition to taking forward the appropriate strategic approach, policies throughout the Core Strategy therefore need to incorporate the principles of climate change adaptation and mitigation e.g. provision of appropriate green open spaces, avoiding/mitigating flood risk and ensuring connections to sustainable transport networks. The inter-linked nature of these topic areas in providing a comprehensive response to climate change needs to be recognised. Although the District has overall lower levels of average energy consumption and carbon emissions, the domestic sector represents the largest source of carbon emissions in the District and there are higher than average levels of domestic energy use. It therefore seems appropriate to consider targeting the use of alternative energy sources and improved energy efficiency in 37 domestic properties via encouraging additional measures alongside planning applications for extensions and conversions to existing properties. Supplementary Planning Documents and other public sources of information could signpost householders to appropriate sources of grants and funding available to encourage uptake of such technologies. In relation to new residential and commercial development PPS1 Supplement encourages local authorities to go beyond national timetables for sustainable construction and set on-site renewable energy targets, where it is locally justified and considered viable. The evidence base highlights the role that new developments are likely to play in terms of the District achieving overall carbon reductions via alternative energy supplies given the relatively limited scope for larger-scale renewable energy installations. Micro-generation is therefore a key opportunity for the District and policies that encourage its uptake should be considered. There is evidence to support this in terms of the economic and financial implications as well as the currently low level of renewable energy use within the District. However, given the uncertainty over costs in some areas a pragmatic framework is needed to enable overall sustainable development. In terms of adaptation to climate change the evidence also suggests that improved water efficiency should be a local priority as well as ensuring appropriate green infrastructure is incorporated into schemes to both address local biodiversity and flood management issues (as well as potential urban heating effects). Other flood management solutions beyond green infrastructure should also be considered. 38 Annex 1 Example Analysis of Development Strategy The tables below highlight how the impacts and causes of climate change have been considered at a strategic level, in relation to PPS1 Supplement criteria. These principles reflect the key objectives of the Sustainability Appraisal for the Core Strategy, which highlights the projected overall positive/neutral effect of the preferred development strategy. Potential Strategic Growth Location: Land West of Pye Green Road, Cannock Renewable Energy Opportunities Transport Infrastructure e.g. schools, water supply, waste management Vulnerability e.g. flood risk and heat island effects and capacity to respond Effects on biodiversity Open Space and Green Infrastructure Nearby areas potentially suitable for CHP/District Heating Systems and this large-scale development could explore such solutions further. Range of microgeneration technology solutions are available as alternative solutions. Site is located nearby public transport routes and key local facilities are accessible by sustainable means. May need to improve capacity of existing public transport provision and ensure linkages into existing cycle/footpath network. Provision of local schools and health facilities along public transport/walking routes. However school provision may require increases at primary years level and small scale health provision e.g. doctor’s surgeries may be required (subject to further analysis). Given location within urban area there is existing access to waste management facilities at supermarkets etc. Cannock household waste centre within 23miles. May require upgrades to water infrastructure in light of large scale nature of site. Lies outside high risk flood zones. On site management of surface water generation required having regard to climate change. Not considered more vulnerable than rest of the District to warming effects. Not a designated site, although has features of interest and lies in close proximity to the AONB and key sites e.g. Cannock Chase SAC. There will be a need to demonstrate no adverse impacts and mitigate any impacts via green infrastructure provision on site. Enhancements could be provided as part of green infrastructure. Currently the main function as a key piece of green infrastructure is in visual terms. Development of the site will need to contribute to increased provision within the urban area. 39 Potential Strategic Growth Locations: South East and West of Norton Canes Renewable Energy Opportunities Transport Infrastructure e.g. schools, water supply, waste management Vulnerability e.g. flood risk and heat island effects and capacity to respond Effects on biodiversity Open Space and Green Infrastructure Given potential large-scale and mixed use nature of sites, CHP/District Heating Systems could be explored. Range of microgeneration technology solutions are available as alternative solutions. Site is located at edge of existing urban area and as such may require the provision of additional public transport services to serve the site and ensure linkages into existing cycle/footpath network. Provision of nearby Health Centre and schools at local centre, alongside public transport routes/walking distance. Given location adjacent/nearby two main urban areas there is existing access to waste management facilities at supermarkets etc. Cannock household waste centre within 1 mile. May require upgrades to water infrastructure in light of large scale nature of sites. Lies outside high risk flood zones. On site management of surface water generation required having regard to climate change. Not considered more vulnerable than rest of the District to warming effects. Not a designated site- some features of local interest to be accounted for. Will need to consider impact upon nearby designated sites and any existing on-site wildlife as part of design via green infrastructure provision. Enhancements could be provided as part of green infrastructure. Currently the main function as a key piece of green infrastructure is in visual terms. Development of the site will need to contribute to increased provision within the urban area. 40 Key References and Further Information Supra-national and national sources BERR (2008) UK Strategy for Sustainable Construction DECC (2011) Total final energy consumption at Regional and Local Authority Level 2005-2008. http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/regional/total_final/1094-total-subnatl-final-energycons-2005-2008.xls BREEAM Assessments- http://www.breeam.org/ Cyrill and Sweet (2010) A cost review of the Code for Sustainable Homes Report Cyrill and Sweet (2005) How much does it cost to achieve BREEAM and EcoHomes ratings? Report for BREEAM Energy Savings Trust - http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/ DCLG (2006) Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk DCLG (2006) Building a Greener Future DCLG (2006) Code for Sustainable Homes DCLG (2007) Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1: Planning and Climate Change DCLG (2007) Indices of Multiple Deprivation DECC (2010) Local and Regional CO2 Emissions Estimates for 2005-8 http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/climate_change/localAuthorityCO2/457-localregional-co2-2005-2008-full-data.xls DEFRA (2009) Government Response- Five Point Action Plan http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/adapt/index.htm DEFRA (2009) UK Climate Change Projections http://ukcp09.defra.gov.uk/ DECC (2010) 2007 High Level Energy Indicators http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/regional/high_level/1_20100526135539_e_@@_high level2007.xls Energy Performance Certificates (2008) http://epc.direct.gov.uk/index.html EON Dalston Square Press Release 2009 http://pressreleases.eonuk.com/blogs/eonukpressreleases/archive/2009/07/27/1417.aspx 41 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change OPDM (2004) Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy ONS 2001 Census OPSI The Climate Change Act 2008 OPSI The Planning Act 2008 Renewables Advisory Board (2007) The Role of Onsite Energy Generation in Delivering Zero Carbon Homes Select Committee Trade and Industry First Report (2007) Lord Stern (2006) The Economics of Climate Change Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) (2007) Adapting to climate change UN Brundtland Report (1987) Our Common Future UKCIP02 and UKCP09http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=156&Itemid=299 Sub-national Environment Agency (2009) State of the Region Report Advantage West Midlands (2008/2009) Regional Economic Strategy Sustainability West Midlands (2004) The Potential Impacts of Climate Change in the West Midlands WMRA (2008) Regional Spatial Strategy Phase 2 Revision West Midlands Regional Observatory (2008) State of the Region Report- Climate Change West Midlands Regional Observatory (2006) Regional Energy Strategy Report Monitoring West Midlands Regional Observatory (2006) West Midlands Regional Energy Strategy Monitoring Report Local Cannock Chase Council Air Quality Report (2007) 42 Cannock Chase Council Air Quality Screening Update (2009) Cannock Chase Council Accessibility Appraisal 2009 (prepared by Staffordshire County Council) Cannock Chase Council Affordable Housing Viability Study 2009 (prepared by Fordham Research) Cannock Chase Council Core Strategy Preferred Options 2009 Cannock Chase Council Environmental Priority Delivery Plan 2009-2011 Cannock Chase Council Employment Land Study 2009 (prepared by King Sturge) Cannock Chase Council PPG17 Assessment 2009 Cannock Chase Council Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Cannock Chase Strategic Economic Development Support (prepared by Optimat, 2008) Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Appropriate Assessment 2009 (forthcomingprepared by Footprint Ecology) Cannock Chase Council State of Cannock Chase Report 2008 Cannock Chase Council Rugeley Town Centre Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2 2009 (prepared by Halcrow) Cannock Chase Council District-wide Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2008 (prepared by Halcrow) Cannock Chase Council Strategic Housing Market Assessment (C3 Area) 2008 (prepared by Ecotec) Cannock Chase Council The Future of Cannock Chase: Sustainable Community Strategy 20082020 Forest of Mercia Plan Review 2006 (prepared by the University of Staffordshire) Staffordshire County-wide Renewable/Low Carbon Energy Study (prepared by Camco, 2010) Staffordshire County Council (2008) A Hard Rain: Corporate Climate Change Strategy, Second Edition Staffordshire County Council (2010) Staffordshire Local Climate Impacts Profile Staffordshire Declaration on Climate Changewww.staffsoc3.org.uk/uploads/Staffordshire%20Declaration6.pdf 43 Staffordshire Strategic Partnership (2008) Local Area Agreement Staffordshire Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 Staffordshire County Council Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Issues and Options 2008 Staffordshire Geodiversity Action Plan 2006 Staffordshire County Council Joint Municipal Waste Strategy for Staffordshire and Stoke 2008 Stockholm Environment Institute (2006) Cannock Chase Ecological Footprint 44