Graham Rix

What will the June 2010 changes to PPS3 means for housing development?

The only real change here was to remove garden land from the definition of ‘previously developed land’.  It’s hard to see how this will work in practice, but it won’t be as dramatic as the press would have us believe. The thrust of the PPS is that a lot of new housing is still needed. (more…)

For every tree saved by a Tree Preservation Order there must be a hundred felled because of the threat of TPOs. Prior to submitting a Planning application, almost every developer, large or small, amateur or professional, fells any tree within about ten metres of the proposal, – just in case the trees get ‘preserved’  Yet had the trees not been felled, and the development had proceeded, the majority of trees on the site would have survived. (more…)

I tend to design houses with a 75mm insulated cavity.  Most architects specify at least 100mm. And it’s not unusual to see, featured in magazines, up to 200mm. (more…)

It’s hard to know if the politicians who devised Britain’s current policy on photovoltaic cells were slimeballs who deserve to be shot, or geniuses to be honoured.  Possibly geniuses: consider the fact that lack of investment in power stations may soon cause a crisis in our energy supply. Answer: invent a system whereby we pay six times more for our energy than we currently do, and persuade us we have a reduction! 

Photovoltaic cells sound good:  free energy from the sun. Common sense suggests there are just two facts the consumer needs to know: (i) the capital cost and (ii) the annual energy savings.  However reading through the literature of any supplier of p.v. systems you occasionally you get the answer to question 1.  But almost never the answer to question 2. 

The figures are, nevertheless, simple to work out.  Outputs of photovoltaic cells are usually quoted to kWp.  This is the peak output, in kilowatts, under ideal conditions, but it’s not very relevant.  The relevant figure is the energy generated by the system in an average year. There are many factors to take into account, but in southern England, for a south facing roof, in a good position, you multiply the kWp figure by 800 to reach the energy (in kWh) generated annually. 

Thus an average system of 1.5kWp (up to 15 square metres of panelling) would generate around 1200 kWh/year.  The cost of installation would be around £10,000.  The system is usually guaranteed for five years, though the claimed life expectancy is around 25 years.  So a loan of £10k, for twenty five years, at an interest rate of between 6% and 9%, costs between £782 and £1018 per annum.   But, at 13p per unit, the true value of the electricity generated is just £156! 

There is something absurd but important to consider here, and that is the ‘Feed in Tariff’’.  This is a scandalous waste of bill-payers’ money whereby owners of photovoltaic panels get paid between 36.1p and (if the cells are retrofitted) 41.3p per kWh of power generated.  The householder still gets to use the ‘free’ power, and so can save another 13p per unit, thus making of around 54p per unit. This is more than four times the market value of the power, – all subsidised by the neighbours.  

But does even this make it a good idea for a householder?  Well, if you generate 1200kWh per year that is around £650 you’ve ‘earned’ (assuming you use all the energy).  But at even at 6% annual interest you’re repaying £140 more than that back to the bank. Put another way your free green energy is costing you even more than your neighbours are paying you, and five or six times more than the market rate. 

As other electricity consumers that pay for the subsidy, if more than a tiny minority of consumers take up this option of an annual subsidy of, say, £650 each, electricity will get very expensive.   Photovoltaic systems usually only generate around a third of your electricity needs, the other two thirds you buy in the normal way.  So whilst your neighbours will be paying a huge subsidy to you: you will soon be paying a huge subsidy back.  The 13p per unit you currently pay will rocket in price, and your annual losses will be a lot more than £140. 

One more thing you’re not told about is the lifespan of the inverter (the box that converts direct current to alternating current).  The inverter is usually guaranteed for two years (at extra cost you can often get a five year warranty) and is expected to last about ten years. A 2kW mode, can cost around £2000; hence the cost of replacing the inverter is possibly in excess of the true value of the energy inverted in that ten year period.  So, remember to budget another £200 a year for inverter replacement, and note that it could push the cost of generating your ‘free’ green energy to £1 per unit.

And, finally, ‘sustainability’ is about leaving the planet in a more attractive state than you found it.  Photovoltaic systems do the exact opposite, they are extremely ugly, and ruin the appearance of almost any house and the surrounding area. (There is the option of photovoltaic ‘slates’ and tiles, whose appearance less offensive, but they cost even more than panels.)

In order to further encourage the use of this expensive and ugly technology the government changed the planning laws to allow solar panels to be installed on any slope of roof, even front roof slopes, even in conservation areas.  The only stated prohibition is that they must not project beyond the plane of the roof by more than 200mm, and must not be higher than the ridge of the roof.  But in the usual confused manner of modern government, the revised order also states

        (a) solar PV or solar thermal equipment installed on a building shall, so far as practicable, be sited so as to minimise its effect on the external appearance of the building;

        (b) solar PV or solar thermal equipment shall, so far as practicable, be sited so as to minimise its effect on the amenity of the area

So, plenty of scope to challenge any installation on a front roof slope!  Did the householder use the least obtrusive technology?  Might he have used (expensive) photovoltaic tiles in order to minimise the effect?  Might an unfortunate householder be required to remove his £12k installation?

 In summary: encouraging the use of ugly technology to produce energy that costs six times the current cost, with very confused legislation, is not the answer to our current problems.

‘Sustainability’ should be about leaving the planet in a better place than you found it.   The appalling ugliness of most ‘sustainable’ buildings seems evidence that the architects responsible have lost the plot. (more…)

The Prince is entitled to a view as much as anyone.  Given the failure of the Planning system, it’s clear that HRH represents the views of the ‘man in the street’ to a far greater degree than Richard Rogers or most Planning departments.

There can be few of man’s inventions that have that have been such a failure as the planning system.  In almost any village town or city, the half dozen most depressing places will be the result of the planning system. The half dozen most attractive places will have been constructed before the Planning system was invented.

If after introducing the national health service, we’d discovered that life expectancy had halved: we’d soon have spot something was wrong.  But we’ve not yet spotted this with the planning system.

(more…)

There’s a wide variety of reasons.  Here are some of them.

1          Modern technology: during the last sixty or seventy years there has become available a huge range of cheap mass-produced industrial materials that previously didn’t exist.  More than a hundred years ago house builders just had to use natural materials and traditional craftsmanship.

(more…)