
Government criticised after admitting there was ‘very little’ evidence for claim that Part L changes will boost Green Deal
The government has admitted it has no up-to-date information on which to base its claim that changes to the Building Regulations will drive uptake of the flagship Green Deal.
Last week the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) proposed changes to Part L of the Building Regulations, which would make it compulsory for building owners to upgrade the energy efficiency of their buildings as a consequence of making other improvements.
Launching the policy, communities minister Andrew Stunell said it would boost uptake of the Green Deal. But industry experts challenged this, saying loopholes in the regulations and lax building controls would likely lead to widespread avoidance.
Speaking at a conference on the proposed changes at the BRE this week Paul DeCort, leader of the Part L team at the DCLG, admitted the department had “very little” research on likely rates of compliance. This is despite non-domestic buildings being subject to a consequential improvements provision since 2006.
Andrew Warren, director of the Association for the Conservation of Energy, said it was “negligent” of the government not to have modelled likely compliance. “How do we know that consequential improvements are going to be delivered?” he said.
Sustainability consultant David Strong said: “It’s shocking that the government has not undertaken any research.”
According to the impact assessment of the policy, the Part L changes, to be introduced from October 2012, will cost business £103m a year.
11 April 2012
09 March 2012
5 March 2012
23 February 2012
10 February 2012 | Updated: 15 February 2012 12:22 pm
2 February 2012
27 January 2012
20 January 2012
Sign in to make a comment on this story.
Sign In
Readers' comments (1)
There is a distinct lack of guidance and information regarding Green Deal as a whole. My personal interest involves work to older domestic housing stock, particularly Listed Buildings, but I believe that Housing Associations also have concerns. Energy providers do not appear to have developed strategies for domestic properties, or if they have are very vague about what they may be able to offer domestic customers. When the Construction Sector is still struggling the Government is missing a trick. The amount of money allocated to Quantitative Easing, if directed at upgrading substandard domestic housing stock, would provide a more effective boost to the economy. It would generate skilled jobs, encouraging people to stay in the construction section, rather than lose their skill base. In turn that would keep the pool of construction skills knowledge active, ready for the construction of new housing stock which everyone says is needed. Innovative green technology and recycling industries would be encouraged. It would lead to increased tax receipts. Both "the squeezed middle" and "hardworking families" would benefit from reduced energy bills, thus removing a source of worry. In time it would increase their spending power. Our thinking is too short term in this country. It is about time we learned the lessons from Scandinavia and Germany. A short term boost could lead to long term benefits in more senses than one.
lindsey.briggs.designer@gmail.com