Aside from a few green wonks, few had heard of the “Merton” rule until this week. Now the name of the quiet south London suburb has flared into consciousness (p24) because of misleading reports that the British Property Federation had somehow convinced government to abandon the said rule – which dictates that at least 10% of the energy used in commercial schemes over 1,000m2 is found from onsite renewable sources. This is not quite the case.
Some history: the Merton decision to insist that one-tenth of the heat and light in commercial buildings comes from the likes of windmills and photovoltaic cells was inspired by Planning Policy Statement 22 in August 2004. This asked local authorities to give “due regard” to meeting government targets for renewable energy – 10% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. In particular, PPS 22 gave councils the legal right to “require a percentage” of energy to come from onsite sources.
Take account of climate change
Since then, another 150 councils have adopted the Merton rules – but more than 200 have failed to set targets, many convinced of their impracticality. The pressure was increased in January when a Commons select committee urged the government to force authorities to set such targets by the end of 2009. But, one month before this, the Communities department had issued a consultation paper on how the planning system needed to be adapted to cope with climate change. A central point was the proposal that all new commercial property developments should be “carbon neutral” by 2016.
Since then, the BPF has been quietly co-operating with the Communities department on ways to achieve this target, including examining ways to self-generate power. However, one of the issues that has emerged is the sheer impracticality of the Merton rule: both in terms of its practical application in differing parts of the country – and whether it could be properly enforced.
but be sensible about energy sources
The danger of sticking to a rigid 10% from windmills and solar panels is now only becoming apparent as the Merton rule is adopted outside the London borough. Forcing a developer to tack on windmills in windless valleys or solar panels in sunless spots is just silly and won’t achieve the 10% aim. In order to just achieve this figure from onsite sources, some are now being forced to consider expensive and impractical ideas such as ground-sourced heat pumps.
If the Merton rule is applied rigidly, it will fall into disrepute. The sensible conclusion is to agree on the 10% figure – but allow developers to plug into offsite renewable sources such as local heat and power grids (not terribly practical) or (much more so) let them buy electricity from “green” suppliers via the National Grid.
The government’s conclusions on that climate change consultation paper are due out in the next month or so. The indications are that sense will prevail and that the planning guidance that will be issued will modify the 2004 diktat that renewable energy needs come from “onsite” sources – and thus allow developers to meet the 10% target by using “green” power from elsewhere.
But it is a little early to relax if the non-adoption of the original advice is anything to go by, it could be a long while before local authorities are persuaded by the arguments, however sensible.
