Download Climate Change and Renewable Energy Background Paper (CCDC

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