Discharge of this condition. How much detail did you provide

[Post and beam]

Below, in bold is the last condition i need to discharge.  I submitted the SAP assessment document, the Buiding Regs Part L report and the construction notes from the TF supplier.

Is there anyone here that has recently been successful with regard to this sustainability condition that can comment on what level of detail they submitted. Thanks in advance

 

 

The Statement should demonstrate how the development responds to sustainable construction, energy and water efficiency:

• how the design, materials, construction and operation of the development would minimise overheating in summer and reduce the need for heating in the winter and cooling in summer;

• how carbon dioxide emissions will be minimised across the development site;

• how the development will minimise the use of mains Policies CC1, CC2, CC3, WAT4 East Herts District Plan 2018 19 East Herts District Council Validation Checklist (October 2021) Requirement When required? What is required Policy Driver water The statement should the explain, in more detail, the answers to the sustainability checklist criteria relating to water efficiency, energy and carbon reduction and climate change adaptation.

[nod]

We had all sorts of conditions on our present and previous BC say they are planning matters With now one to check them We have taken the seriously this time 

 

The guy who did our Final Sap offered to do the water usage report which was required by BC Nothing else was needed 

[Temp]

Perhaps find another planning application with same condition in your area and see what they wrote.

[Alan Ambrose]

Well that's a weird thing as at least some of those are covered by BC already. As there are no hard-and-fast targets written there, maybe one or two pages of eco-waffle? Most people on BH are far ahead of the curve on these items, so I'm thinking probably you will be too.

Edited January 31 by Alan Ambrose

[saveasteading]

I actually agree that the planners require this, as at least it makes people think.

The problem might be that planners are not technical people and don't necessarily understand the difference between the green-wash they are subjected to, and reality.

So I agree that you try to find a previous successful write-up and adapt if to your circumstances.

 

I'm especially pleased re water use. That is a big issue that is mostly being ignored but is sortable.

Add sustainable drainage if that applies.

[Alan Ambrose]

But isn't it just a repeat of part L, part O etc which have actual numbers in them?

 

Now I think the LPA should use some measure of sustainability as a material factor in weighing up permissions. If they did, that would give an advantage to most self-builders over the mass-builders / minimum regs lot. In my limited experience, they don't at all though - there'll be guff in the local plan about 'sustainability' but the majority of new house permissions will be for low quality / minimum regs houses.

Edited January 31 by Alan Ambrose

[Post and beam]

17 hours ago, Temp said:

Perhaps find another planning application with same condition in your area and see what they wrote.

I sort of hoped that asking on here would achieve the desired result.

 

I know from my current water bills that our domestic use is well below average. But i have no idea how to demonstrate(prove) this with regard to our intended build.

[dnb]

7 hours ago, saveasteading said:

The problem might be that planners are not technical people and don't necessarily understand the difference between the green-wash they are subjected to, and reality.

I think, sadly, that this sums it up perfectly.

 

I'm an engineer so by nature extremely cynical. I fear that while the intentions are good it's open to the usual abuse that a template document purchased for a couple of hundred pounds satisfies their requirements and then everyone carries on exactly as they like.

[saveasteading]

2 hours ago, dnb said:

I'm an engineer so by nature extremely cynical.

I say I'm questionning. Others may say cynical.

 

At a self righteous presentation by one of the very big contractors, we were being told we must all be zero waste, like them.

I dared ask what happens to stuff that can't be reused  or recycled . After much waffle, eventually I got an admission that what they really mean is that they don't have any waste among what can be recycled. The rest is recategorised and omitted from analysis.

Cabin rubbish is not construction waste. Mastic tubes and old tarpaulins can be burnt for energy. Someone takes it away and gives them a receipt stating its going to be cared for.

They didn't mind declaring zero waste, and their clients accepted that.

That company will equally have standard answers about other aspects of sustainability.  The planners don't have resources to challenge it.

[saveasteading]

3 hours ago, Post and beam said:

asking on here would achieve the desired result.

You could try simply telling them that sort of thing.

Theyve given you the headings, so you could address each in turn, giving them something to tick.

Any real numbers would be good. 

 

Your council may well have published some of  their aims. One such might be called the drainage hierarchy...  so if your rainwater is going elsewhere than drains or ditches, or being slowed, then you tell them what you are doing.

[Alan Ambrose]

Unless the planners are going to give positive uplift to applications with proper eco-credentials and use this information in their balanced opinion - I think I would be happier if planning stuck to look-and-feel and neighbour issues and left the materials and insulation to building control.

[saveasteading]

40 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

planning stuck to look-and-feel and neighbour issues and left the materials and insulation to building control.

Sustainable drainage has to be planning led, but also seen through to completion. It depends on location but is vital in flood prone areas. Maybe that is included in 'neighbour issues' if it includes all downstream areas outside the local authority.