tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post3639394661159216829..comments2022-12-13T14:45:12.233+00:00Comments on Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: More non-planning issuesMartin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-81498342987324436872012-10-05T18:18:31.273+01:002012-10-05T18:18:31.273+01:00Many thanks for responding Martin.
There is a fu...Many thanks for responding Martin. <br /><br />There is a fundamental underlying issue here though: just because something is (eventually) technical doesn't mean you should wait to start thinking about it until you're already committed to a project, no more than it makes sense to wait until you're in court before checking what the law is, or wait until your business is up and running before writing a business plan.<br /><br />Most sensible people would want an initial indication of the likely implications of engaging in something before committing serious expense (or agreeing to support it) and surely this is what the planning system is for and the level it operates at (i.e., everyone with legitimate interests gets to debate a development armed with sufficient information to provide everyone with a reasonable sense of the implications, options and consequences, recognising that the costs of doing so should be as low as possible)?<br /><br />All Enplanner seeks to do is to give this kind and level of information so that planning decisions are sensibly informed and fair to all parties, including those who like or dislike energy efficient buildings and renewables. It absolutely isn't a technical design tool, and I think those who object to considering energy strategies as part of the planning process are wrong in assuming you need to engage in design to inform outline energy strategies, no more than you need to do detailed architectural drawings and decide on the colour of door handles in order to develop masterplans.<br /><br />I think those architects who take the views you describe are being highly selective in what they consider "technical" - the shape and fabric and use of a building is presumably non-technical in their view, while the way of heating it is somehow more technical ?! - I suspect the real underlying gripe here is that planning policy puts any constraint on architects at all, and simply a desire to minimise this (!). I can understand this, as we would all like to have absolute power over our work, but sadly we live in quite a crowded island, and there is thus a need for informed compromise on most issues (and happily for some, lots of lawyers too!) :).Matthewhttp://www.encraft.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-48077564456493623262012-10-05T15:05:06.707+01:002012-10-05T15:05:06.707+01:00I have no problem with Enplanner as a concept and ...I have no problem with Enplanner as a concept and as a useful tool in the regulatory process; I simply think it is being applied within the wrong regulatory regime. It ought to be linked to Building Control rather than to the planning system. Architects repeatedly tell me that requiring this sort of information at the planning stage is putting the cart before the horse; it causes extra delay and expense to require this information in connection with a planning application. Enplanner would be a much more useful tool if it were to be applied in conjunction with the passing of plans under the Building Regulations, which is where technical issues of this nature should properly be thrashed out. <br /><br />Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-83888511529161898812012-10-04T17:55:44.848+01:002012-10-04T17:55:44.848+01:00I certainly think there are two separate issues he...I certainly think there are two separate issues here. <br /><br />In fact, Enplanner is a genuine attempt to reduce red tape and costs of compliance with on-site renewable energy policies. It costs £175 to produce an energy statement using Enplanner and requires no professional skills beyond common sense. It was built because some professional advisers were charging anything between £1000-£10000 to produce energy statements which is utterly unnecessary given the very limited level of detail required to assess meaningfully and robustly whether renewables are suitable for a site at planning stage. As such Enplanner should be praised for cutting costs not condemned for increasing them.<br /><br />The separate issue raised here is whether it is appropriate to include assessment of renewables' viability at planning stage rather than at building regulations stage. This is clearly a policy/political issue primarily, and a matter for local policy-makers. However, I would make the point that as it only costs less than £200 to determine whether a site is suitable for renewables at planning stage, whereas asking engineering consultants to evaluate this as part of a Building Regs compliance check or design stage can easily, again, cost several thousand pounds (for both developer and building control) it might well be in everyone's interest and the most efficient approach to do this check sooner (i.e., at planning stage) rather than later. We should not seek to make things more complicated than they actually are. <br /><br />Unfortunately, this seems to me to be an area where common sense rarely gets much of a look in and people are often too eager to jump to conclusions. <br /><br />I must declare an interest in this, because my company helped develop Enplanner for the Carbon trust and Bristol, but the objective was very clearly to reduce costs not increase them, and most users seem to agree that it has succeeded in this. I'd be happy to continue the debate if we can start from facts and realities, not just broad prejudices.<br /><br />Matthewhttp://www.encraft.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-88698519005596667792012-07-03T13:22:30.282+01:002012-07-03T13:22:30.282+01:00I have tried objecting to such policies in Core St...I have tried objecting to such policies in Core Strategies for exactly the reasons Martin has expressed, but been completely ignored by Inspectors. I now don't bother commenting on these policies as it seems to be a waste of time.<br /><br />However, I have noticed one Core Strategy currently going through the examination process that does not include this type of policy and this should be strongly encouraged.ajsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-54537370632519067782012-07-01T09:39:00.390+01:002012-07-01T09:39:00.390+01:00Spot on Martin; it must be B Regs' matter. In...Spot on Martin; it must be B Regs' matter. In fact it beggars belief that it could even be contemplated to be otherwise. Just how out of touch is Whitehall?<br /><br />@Chris P above. Fabric first: also spot on---and very poorly understood by your average planning dept (though not all)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-70210802470482770452012-06-26T08:35:03.531+01:002012-06-26T08:35:03.531+01:00I do broadly agree with you, it is the Building Re...I do broadly agree with you, it is the Building Regulations Team that are best placed and qualified to deal with these sometimes quite technical matters, it is a further unnecessary burden on planners who are expected to become a Jack of yet another trade. However I think there is scope for changes to the present system to reach a middle ground as a lot of the issues involved are not always properly considered at the early design stage, for example in the orientation of the property to enable maximum solar gain for solar panels to name an example. This can result in delay if a redesign is needed at a late stage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-90502530748620794852012-06-26T07:07:34.422+01:002012-06-26T07:07:34.422+01:00Don't blame Enplanner though, it's the pol...Don't blame Enplanner though, it's the policies that deserve your wrath! Sustainability is such a big subject, it's not surprising planners are searching for a simplified way to understand it. My own approach is fabric before renewables but nothing is as simple as that!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com