Annex D: Response Form Invitation You are invited to comment on the…

Annex D: Response Form
Invitation
You are invited to comment on the Government's proposals for a Code for
Sustainable Homes.

Your views are particularly sought on the key proposals in Sections 1 and
2 and their potential impacts set out in the partial Regulatory Impact
Assessment (RIA) in Annex E. It should be noted that, although all these
proposals are being consulted on as part of a package of measures, they
are not mutually exclusive, i.e. one or more of them could be disregarded
or amended in the light of the consultation exercise.

How to respond
Comments are invited on any aspect of this consultation document.
However, to assist our analysis of responses we would appreciate it if you
could complete the response form below either electronically or in hard
copy. Please feel free to submit additional comments, evidence and/or
supporting documentation.

Responses can be returned by post or by e-mail. The deadline for
receiving responses to this consultation is 6 March 2006. All responses
received before the deadline will be considered.

Additional copies of this consultation document and this response form
may be downloaded from the ODPM website, www.odpm.gov.uk, or
obtained as hard copies from:

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
PO Box 236
Wetherby
West Yorkshire
LS23 7NB
Tel: 0870 1226 236
Fax: 0870 1226 237
Textphone: 0870 1207 405
E-mail: odpm@twoten.press.net
Please return your response to this consultation as soon as possible
and in any event no later than 6 March 2006. Please reply direct to
the contractors engaged in collation and initial analysis at:

By post:                   Or by e-mail:
     Code Review                csb@ciria.org
     CIRIA
     174-180 Old Street
     London
     EC1V 9BP
Response form for the consultation on proposals for introducing a
Code for Sustainable Homes

Respondent Details
Name: Hugh Ellis                          Please return by
Organisation: Friends of the Earth        6 March 2006 by post or
                                          e-mail to:
Address: 26-28 Underwood Street
                                          Code Review
                                          CIRIA
                                          174-180 Old Street
Town/City: London                         London
County/Postcode: N1 7JQ                   EC1V 9BP
Fax: 020 7490 0881
                                          e-mail: to: csb@ciria.org
Email: info@foe.co.uk
Organisation type (tick one box only)
   Approved Inspector                   Manufacturer

   Architects                           Trade body or association

   Civil/Structural Engineer            Private individual (unaffiliated)

   Commercial Developers                Professional body or institution

   Consultancy                          Property funder

   House or property developer          Research/academic organization

  Housing Association                   Specific interest or lobby group
  (Registered Social Landlords)

  Other non-governmental                Individual in practice, trade or
  organisation                          profession

   Builder/other contractor             Journalist/media
   (please specify)

  Local authority ­                     Insurer
  Building Control

  Local authority ­                     Other (please specify):
  Environmental health

   Local authority ­ other
   (please specify)
Please use an X in answering the following questions
Is your response confidential?                       Yes          No
If so please explain why.



(See disclaimer on page x)
Foreword: It is appreciated that not all consultees will wish to express an
opinion on every question. Where no response is given it will be
presumed that consultees do not wish to contribute to the consultation on
that specific matter. Where consultees strongly support particular aspects
of the guidance please use the comments sections of this form to note
that support.

Please note that provision is made throughout this questionnaire for you
to provide additional comments. If, however you wish to provide detailed
comments on any aspect of the consultation then please append
additional materials and supplementary documents, clearly marked and
cross referenced to the relevant questions, as necessary.

1    Do you welcome the concept of the Code for Sustainable Homes?

Comments:                                               Yes          No


1.1 Friends of the Earth welcomes the acknowledgement in the first
paragraph of the consultation that `more than a quarter of the UK's carbon
emissions come from energy used in homes and more than half the
water`. The urgency of tackling climate change can not be overstated, as
exemplified by the UKs commitment reducing our carbon emissions.


1.2 Friends of the Earth welcomes the overall concept of a Code that will
create a coherent framework to drive up standards of sustainable
construction and design. The overarching objective of the Code must be
to ensure that all developments are designed so as to minimise their
environmental impact by minimising resource use through the entire life
cycle of the building.


1.3 The Government has a major opportunity to secure a step change in
the environmental performance of housing by reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and delivering low carbon and sustainable communities. This
will be essential for economic as well as environmental reasons.
However, we are extremely disappointed that:


- The scope of Code has been reduced from all buildings to only new
domestic dwellings


- The Code remains voluntary for all private sector housing
- The internal code standards are weak and offer little incentive to
promote innovation.


Taken together these deficiencies render the Code an ineffective policy
instrument with little potential to effect change in building design and
quality.


1.4 The overall approach to empowering and embedding the Code in
existing regulatory systems is flawed. There is insufficient join up
between the provisions of PPS 3 Draft (Housing) and the objectives of the
Code. In particular while the planning system has major role to play in
incorporating Code standards into development plan policy neither the
Code nor PPS 3 contains any discussion of how this can be achieved.


1.5 In addition, Friends of the Earth considers that the Code should be
clearly applicable to Wales until building regulations are devolved, so that
Wales is able to tackle climate change effectively in this area.




2    Do you think that the coverage of six essential elements and other
     optional elements is correct?

Comments:                                                Yes           No


2.1 Friends of the Earth believes that instead of the elements outlined in
the draft Code, that the new BRE EcoHomes standards (scheduled for
publication in April 2006) should form the basis of the Code. This would
build on the experience of industry in building to EcoHomes standards,
utilize the experience of professionals who already work with the current
EcoHomes system, and provide a clear and consistent approach to
industry.


2.2 The EcoHomes system also has the advantage of bringing in the
transport considerations of new build, which are an interconnected part of
the sustainability of a home, and should not just be thought of as an
entirely seperate issue.


2.3 WWF have identified four key advantages of this approach which
Friends of the Earth endorses:
'- it would be consistent with existing Government requirements. English
Partnerships and the Housing Corporation will continue using EcoHomes
2005/6 standards until 2008 due to contractual commitments.


- It would provide consistency for the industry. Major house builders have
told WWF that they will continue to use the EcoHomes standard on
private developments for the foreseeable future as they now have
extensive experience of working with this standard and fully understand
the requirements. The industry has been critical of the proliferation of
sustainability tools and guidance, and this approach would help to simplify
and rationalise information and standards promoted.


- BRE have a team of trained and licensed assessors already in place to
enable delivery of the Code immediately.


- The award winning BREEAM family of tools are internationally renowned
and have formed the basis of most, if not all other international
environmental building standards.' (WWF Consultation response to the
Draft Code for Sustainable homes March 2006))




3    Is a mix of essential and optional `tradable' elements helpful?

Comments:                                              Yes             No


3.1 While FOE acknowledges the flexibility of a tradable approach we are
concerned that the proposed Code contains very low minimum standards,
particularly regarding those criteria that directly relate to carbon
emissions. For energy use, the Code minimum standard does not even go
beyond the new building regulations despite the fact that far greater
efficiency is technically possible. The sustainability assessment
commissioned by ODPM suggests that emissions from energy use in new
homes could be cut by 17 per cent if they were all built to the EcoHomes
`excellent' standard, as compared to current building regulations.


3.3 . It is particularly important to achieve these standards now given the
opportunity of the planned large scale expansion of housing development.
Retrofitting these new homes would be significantly more expensive than
designing efficient homes from the start.
3.4 It is to be regretted that the draft Code provides no information
regarding what standards will be required at each of the stages of the
Code (beyond the minimum requirements), thereby negating any
constructive comments that we might have been able to provide..




4    Do you think that a scoring system in terms of points out of 100 is
     workable?

Comments:                                                Yes          No


4.1 The draft contains scant information as to how the scoring system will
work. Without this information, it is hard to see what the combination of
choices would be to achieve the different star ratings - for example what
possible combinations would be required to achieve the 50 extra Code
points for the 5 star rating? Without this information, it is not possible to
fully evaluate the concept of the scoring system.


4.2 Instead of using the 100 point system, and spending more time
working it up into a more comprehensive proposal, Friends of the Earth
believes the Code should adopt the same scoring systems as EcoHomes
2006.
5    Do you think the concept of a one to five-star rating system is right?

Comments:                                                Yes          No


5.1 Friends of the Earth thinks that one of the key purposes of the Code is
to create a level playing field for industry, and to provide a mechanism by
which developments will be built to high environmental standards. The
designation of these standards should have an internal mechanism that
increases the Code standards, to take account of technological advances
over time. Bearing that in mind, the five star system does not help the
Code to meet these aims for the following reasons:


- the star system does not encourage developments to meet high
environmental standards, as developers can merely reach the one star
rating, which does not even go beyond current government regulations for
energy efficiency.


- there is no incentive for the developer to achieve the 5 star rating,
because it is not mandatory, and so will only been seen as luxury that will
be applied to few homes. As a result, less 5 star standard houses will be
built and the unit costs will be higher than if they were more ubiquitous.


- the `luxury` element of a 5 star image will not help to increase the public
awareness of what should be possible across the sector. Instead it should
be clear that higher ratings will also bring lower running costs, long-term
affordability and better quality.


5.2 Whilst it is to be welcomed that buyers are fully informed about the
environmental standards of their building, this does not change the fact
that their choices will still be restricted to what stock is built, much of
which is likely to only conform to the lower star ratings. It would be more
effective to make higher standards mandatory, so that the burden is lifted
from the consumer, giving them greater choice of buildings to purchase in
higher environmental standards. The complete voluntary approach - as
demonstrated by CO2 emissions from cars, or green electricity tariffs,
puts too much expectation on the consumer to be an expert in the field,
which should instead be regulated by government.




6    If you are a house-builder, will you use the Code?
Comments:                                               Yes          No


N/a


7     Do you agree that no certification should be awarded until a post
      construction check to verify that the home complies with the design
      assessment rating?

Comments:                                               Yes          No

7.1 Friends of the Earth agrees that to ensure the integrity of the Code the
certification should not be awarded until a post construction check.




8     Do you have comments on the costs and benefits identified in the
      draft Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)?

Comments:                                               Yes          No


8.1 Friends of the Earth does not agree with the predicted cost of
implementing the minimum level of the Code at £608. We believe this to
be an overestimate because although better designed housing may cost
more, this is a small percentage of total costs. Merton Local Authority puts
green design at just 2.5% onto building costs. The architects and builders
at BedZed estimate that at just 3% of new developments, unit costs for
green homes would fall to the same as conventional development.


8.2 Better designed and more efficient homes have greatly reduced
running costs ­ a major benefit particularly for lower income households
who spend a greater percentage of their income on electricity, heating
and water. In the first year of the BedZed development in London, running
costs were almost £500 a year lower than the average UK home ­
savings of £80 on electricity, £225 on heating and £170 on water.


8.3 It is important to look at the costs and benefits beyond the housing
sector. Housing accounts for around a third of the UK's carbon emissions.
If we don't prevent dangerous climate change there will be massive
economic costs. Carbon reduction measures will have major benefits to
society in relation to the costs of dealing with climate change impacts. In
recent years we have seen hundreds of billions of pounds of damage from
Hurricane Katrina and tens of billions for drought and floods in Europe.
We are not immune in Britain ­ floods in Carlisle and Boscastle have had
major social and economic costs. Climate change will cause more severe
climate disasters and much greater damage to communities and
economies. It will also be the poorest who will be hit hardest ­ they are
least able to protect their property and are less likely to be insured.
Climate change will also affect the economy in other ways ­ for example
increased spending needed to build flood defences and protect
coastlines: all diverting spending away from other priorities. Action on
housing is urgently needed to prevent economic damage from climate
change.




           Energy:
Water efficiency:




Surface water management:




Waste during construction:




Waste during occupation and use:




Use of materials:
         Other:




9   Do you have any other comments on the draft RIA?

Comments:                                         Yes   No




    Energy:




    Water efficiency:




    Surface water management:
10.   Do you have any other comments not covered by your responses
      above?

Comments:                                                Yes          No


10.1 Friends of the Earth is extremely disappointed that the proposed
Code is voluntary for private sector development, and so no matter what
the standards within it, there is no guarantee that house-builders or
anyone else will pay adequate attention to it.


10.2 The planning system is one of the most important mechanisms for
securing low carbon development by enshrining Code standards into the
development plan system. Planning Policy Statement 3 should contain
text to ensure that Code is mandatory for all development. These
amendments would have the additional benefits of creating certainty for
business and investors by making clear the general regulatory framework
for sustainable construction. This would correct the current position where
some Local Authorities require measures such as micro-generation on
new developments and some do not. This suggestion is based on the
assumption that the proposed Code will be improved as outlined by our
responses elsewhere in this document.


10.3 Sustainability assessments show the forecast house-building in
England is likely to lead to substantial emissions of carbon dioxide, the
principal greenhouse gas. Current plans suggest that creating the
materials and constructing 2.8 million new homes by 2016 will release
142.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. In addition, over a 15 year period
an additional 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide will be released due to
energy use in the home. This equates to around 12 million tonnes of
carbon dioxide emissions each year, which is equivalent to ten per cent of
current transport emissions. If higher house building scenarios are
followed then emissions would increase by a further 60 million tonnes
more over a 15 year period. (Figures from ENTEC 2005 "A sustainability
impact assessment of additional housing scenarios in England" ODPM)

10.4 Yet the assessment commissioned by OPDM does not compare the
emissions caused by new house-building with those from alternative
strategies, despite admitting that `reusing entire buildings by retrofitting
them, reduces the total amount of embodied energy' and therefore the
emissions from new construction. A previous assessment carried out in
2004 failed to make this comparison either.
Thank you for your time

Please note:

All information in responses, including personal information, may be
subject to publication or disclosure under freedom of information
legislation. If a correspondent requests confidentiality, this cannot be
guaranteed and will only be possible if considered appropriate under the
legislation. Any such request should explain why confidentiality is
necessary. Any automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT
system will not be considered as such a request unless you specifically
include a request, with an explanation, in the main text of your response.

Confidential responses will nevertheless be included in any statistical
summary of numbers of comments and views expressed, although
individuals will not be identified.

Names and addresses may be held in an electronic database of
interested parties for the purpose of distributing future consultation
documents on similar issues. However, any such details will not be given
to any third party.

A summary of responses to this consultation will be published at
www.odpm.gov.uk

Paper copies will be available on request.