Transition Black Isle | Forum | Viewing a thread - 'Resilience' event question followup

You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

'Resilience' event question followup Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page]	View previous thread :: View next thread
General Forums -> Discussions	Message format

colindun

Posted 2011-01-18 10:40 (#517)
Subject: 'Resilience' event question followup

Member

Posts: 12

This was my question at the recent ‘Resilience in the Face of Energy Chaos’ event in Fortrose. I wasn’t optimistic about the response by the panel, but even so I was disappointed.

My question was . . .

“It is very difficult under current planning and conservation rules to make older and listed houses more efficient and easier to heat. Improvements like double-glazing, external wall insulation, solar heaters, are unlikely to be permitted. Do you think the time has come to relax planning restrictions?”

---------

I was disappointed by the answers I received. It was maybe naive of me to hope that Ian Ross’s response in particular would suggest that the Planning Department might be a bit more forward-looking and flexible. I cornered him afterwards and asked him for more information, and although he said that he was personally sympathetic and understood the frustration caused by such building restrictions, he wasn’t able to suggest a solution other than living with them.

I don’t think that he or the planning system are taking peak oil seriously enough. There is a lot of expensive-to-heat old housing stock on the Black Isle, and this will be with us for a long time. It is imperative that restrictions are relaxed to allow these homes to be adapted to meet present and future energy needs.

My greatest concern is that if we are not allowed to make these changes now, when the price of oil doubles or triples in the next 10-15 years we will no longer be able to afford to make them. It’s only the relatively cheap price of oil today that helps to keep production costs for solar panels, insulation, etc, within affordable limits. So we need to improve the buildings now, not after the situation degrades.

Anyone got any ideas about how to persuade/force the planning system to become more flexible? It seems to me that there are two options . . .

A) Individuals ignoring the restrictions entirely and risking prosecution
B) A test case where someone applies for permission for something which is currently not permissible, then pursues it up the levels of the planning process to government level.

Central government is telling us to make our homes more efficient and even offering grants to help the process, but this is at odds with local planning when older homes are involved. There needs to be some middle ground.

What seems particularly daft is that the planning system is determined to preserve some chimera of integrity in the older buildings. A hundred years ago there were no such restrictions, and it’s this very chaotic cobbling together of villages and buildings that the planning department now wants to preserve in aspic. These original builders used the best techniques and technology available to them at the time, and had no reservations about knocking down or adjusting older parts to bring them up to modern standards. It’s a pity that we don’t have that freedom now.

Edited by colindun 2011-01-18 10:47

Colin Miller

Posted 2011-01-18 20:59 (#518 - in reply to #517)
Subject: RE: 'Resilience' event question followup

I am in full agreement with your concerns and dissapointment on the response given.

Removing the VAT element from all permissable works would be a starting point.

Anne Thomas

Posted 2011-01-19 16:14 (#519 - in reply to #517)
Subject: Re: 'Resilience' event question followup

Extreme Veteran

Posts: 319
100

I think we do need a concerted campaign. Maybe a petition would do it. I think it does need to go to the top otherwise people always seem to blame someone else or 'the system'. I also suggest that every building that comes through planning with a south facing roof we write in and object that they should be putting in solar panels at the same time. There should be a presumption to do this. It should not be an exception.

Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page]

Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread