Well, how about Friends of the Earth, The National Trust, The Wildlife Trusts, The Woodland Trust … the list is huge. So what on earth is Britains’ “Greenest Government Ever” doing wrong?

I’m on the Planning Committee for Kendal Town Council, and on their behalf I’ve been working my way through the document which has caused all the fuss – the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). And, indeed, the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ is all over the document. But the more I read, the more uneasy I became. And now I think I have discovered the reason.

The draft starts off impeccably by citing the definition of sustainable development in The Report of the Brundtland Commission, “Our Common Future”, published in 1987:

Sustainable development means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs

What this means in practice within the UK was agreed jointly in Five Principles published in March 2005, under the auspices of the Sustainable Development Commission (abolished by the new Government … hmm, maybe a warning there).

It in instructive to compare these Five Principles with the definitions in Paragraph 10 of the NPPF (“For the planning system delivering sustainable development means:”)

I have used italics to highlight what I think are significant differences between the Five Principles, and the draft NPPF’s take on sustainable development. I think these go a long way to explain why the draft has got it wrong:

• it requires an increasing supply of land for housing and for economic growth (for ever? at least 15 years – Para.24) – is that sustainable? and how will people on low incomes have an equal opportunity to live in one of these homes?
• it completely ignores the principle of Polluter Pays – indeed, the whole tone of the document is to try and prevent any such considerations preventing building going ahead (e.g. Para 64, 70, 73, …)
• governance: although communities who want to prepare their own Neighbourhood Plans are required to hold a local referendum, these plans are not allowed to set lower targets than the higher level Local Plans. In our part of the world the Local Plan attracted furious opposition and would never pass a local referendum
• the draft NPPF explicitly sets out to tear up “sound science” – the learnings of the post-war years, embodied in current planning policies

I could go on, but if the Framework is built on a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and it has redefined sustainable development to meet its own preconceptions, then it’s not surprising it’s been the focus of so much opposition.

One final thought – the draft NPPF (para 53) says the purpose of development management is:

The primary objective of development management is to foster the delivery of sustainable development, not to hinder or prevent development

If it was serious about sustainable development, I believe this should be:

The primary objective of development management is to foster the delivery of sustainable development and prevent unsustainable development

A small change, but it creates a balance which is conspicuously lacking throughout the draft.

Yes, I’m afraid there is a real danger of becoming this sad if you get one of these systems installed….

The bad news is that each payment takes six weeks to process! Why? according to Good Energy:

When companies claim the FIT from Ofgem on behalf of customers, it is called the ‘Levelisation Process’. This occurs quarterly and requires all electricity suppliers to pay an amount into a central fund. The amount they pay is determined by their share of the electricity supply market. Once Ofgem (the regulator) has received information from each supplier, including the total FIT claim they are making for their generator customers and the amount of electricity they supply, it calculates how much each supplier must pay to meet the total amount of FITs being claimed. Ofgem then instructs the suppliers to pay their share into the central fund. Once received, this money is then redistributed to the suppliers according to the FIT claims they submitted (on behalf of their customers), then the supplier makes the FIT payments to those customers.

This is something the government wants to encourage … just think what the bureaucracy would be if they wanted to discourage it …

So does this mean we are completely self-sufficient in electricity? Unfortunately not, as there is a mismatch between when we produce it and when we use it. With all the good weather, Mel likes to get a load of washing in first thing in the morning – just before our system wakes up. Our electric kettle consumes 3kW – the system generates 3kW only between about 1pm and 4pm, so any cups of tea outwith those hours means relying on the grid. And of course our fridge and freezers run 24×7; we need lights on in the house at night, and so on.

All these issues could be solved if only there was an efficient means of storing for our own use the electricity we generate during the middle of the day. We also waste a lot of electricity by having to boost everything to mains voltage (240v), and then transforming it back down again (e.g. for this laptop, LED lighting, etc.). As solar PV becomes more accepted, we need serious investment in low voltage domestic systems, so that electricity can be stored efficiently and used effectively for normal household purposes. Maybe defining a standard voltage for domestic use (24V?) would be a start.

Government figures for 2009 show us that the average UK household spent over £1100 per annum on fuel and power. According to CAT, over half of that went on space heating – i.e. replacing heat that has leaked out of poorly-insulated houses.

Addressing this issue would not only help people financially, it would also be a significant help to reducing UK’s carbon emissions. And many of the solutions are simple and low-cost – it’s just a matter of persuading people to do something.

Local pressure group SLACCtt have an energy and buildings group who are trying a new approach to getting the message across. They have arranged to borrow two thermal imaging cameras from CAfS. In simple terms, these cameras show where heat is leaking out of buildings. SLACCtt plan to use these with residents’ associations to show where the problems lie in typical local houses – and explain what residents can do.

Here’s Diane from CaFS running a training session in our house last night for a group of SLACCtt volunteers who will be involved in the project. The group had an interesting time exploring our house – not a model of best insulation practice I’m afraid. For example, our loft is partially floored. The previous owners had the loft insulated, but didn’t lift the floorboards to put insulation on the floored sections. The cameras clearly showed this was a mistake… now that I’ve seen it on camera I’ll have to do something about it!

Our system is rated at just under 4kWp – the best we have seen so far is a fraction under 2kWp at 11:50 on November 24th. However, despite the winter conditions, we’re still managing to generate some useful green energy:

The left hand graph shows the past two weeks’ generation, and the right hand graph shows yesterday – a misty, snowy December day.

They duly arrived on site and finished installing the panels, but the work again took longer than expected, so they didn’t finish until about 16.30 – as sunset in Kendal was 16.15, that wasn’t much use for commissioning the system

To our delight, this morning dawned bright and sunny, and it wasn’t long before I got our ‘Sunny Beam‘ chatting merrily to the ‘Sunny Boy‘ inverter in the loft, and telling us that we were in business as a power generator.

The system is now shut down for the night, showing we have reduced the UK’s need for fossil fuels today by 4.04kWh. Well, it’s a start, on a partially sunny autumn day in Cumbria. It’s just a shame that the panels had to come from an Australian company, and the electronics from a German one, if we’re relying on green investments to pull the UK out of recession…

So it’s not surprising that a former corporate barrister now turned green campaigner should come up with a different solution to environmental destruction – simply create a new crime against international peace, “ecocide“.

An attentive audience in Kendal’s Brewery Centre last night listened to Polly Higgins explain the thinking behind the campaign to put ecocide on the international statute books. As you would expect from a barrister, the presentation was closely argued and made a good case that ecocide could be defined in a legally watertight and consistent way. Polly was also hugely optimistic, which was a welcome change when so many climate change activists are living under a permanent gloomy cloud. She argued that criminalising slavery had eliminated it from corporate activity almost immediately, and criminalising environmental destruction would be equally effective.

I regret to say I wasn’t as convinced as some of the audience. Corporations don’t destroy the environment for the fun of it – they are driven by a huge demand from a global marketplace. India, China, Brazil etc. have exploding consumer demand from people who look to the west and say “Yes, I’d like to drive a Toyota Planet Destroyer / take multiple SleazyJet holidays every year / eat large steaks every weekend just like you guys”. I can’t see how simply creating a crime of ecocide will square exponentially increasing demand for resources against a finite and dwindling supply.

But don’t take my word for it – read more about Polly or read her book (she’s sold out last night!)

As the cyclists started the climb out of Kendal, heading south to Garstang, I hope they stopped to admire the brand new addition to the town’s signage – a plaque celebrating Kendal’s status as Cumbria’s First Fairtrade Town, and also now a Transition Town. The Town Council had been a bit worried that the addition might make the signs look a bit cluttered, but agreed to try one sign in time for the cycle ride. I’ll attempt to persuade them on Monday that the trial sign is a success, and the other signs should have the plaque too.

Why the change? I argued in Council in September that the Fairtrade and Transition initiatives had already been supported by the Council. The standards are internationally recognised, and are independently audited and are not easy to achieve. The signs celebrate the achievement of local groups in meeting these standards; they encourage Kendalians to find out more and support the groups; and also promote Kendal’s ‘brand’ to visitors – they show Kendalians are active in key issues like climate change and trade justice.

Good value for a small expenditure on signwriting

Working out the economics for your own property is an interesting exercise. There is a high fixed cost element to installing a system, so the trick is to go for as big a system as will fit on your roof, up to a max of 4kW (above that, the Feed-in-Tariff drops).  From the quotes we’ve had, that will set you back around £16k-17k – so we’re talking a serious investment.

We use gas for space and water heating, so our electricity usage is quite low – about 400w on average for our oven, kettle, fridge, freezer, washing machine, lights, etc. Even with solar panels installed, we will still have to buy in most of our electricity. Why? we use electricity during the hours of darkness, and also during dull days in winter, when solar panels don’t work. However, for nine months of the year, we should be able to sell some electricity to the grid:

Doing all the sums, the net result is that instead of paying our electricity company around £460 per annum, we’d be receiving payments from them of around £980 per annum – a saving of £1440 per annum, or a return of about 8.5% tax free.

Overall, this looks a very attractive scheme – if you can afford the investment. And that’s a pretty big if.