The latest government regulatory review of the green building sector could see more green policies cut, according to experts in the sector…
2015 was a difficult year for green building. The Conservatives, who had once pledged during their time in coalition to become the greenest government, seemingly did their level best to stamp out green policy.
The first casualty was the zero carbon homes standard, which was cut despite being long anticipated. It was followed by the government’s flagship programme, the Green Deal.
The sector has now raised concerns over the latest regulatory review into housing from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).
Speaking at the launch of the review, Business Secretary Sajid Javid said: “This review will give housebuilders and smaller construction businesses a powerful voice as part of our £10bn deregulation drive.
“Where rules are too complicated, ineffective or poorly enforced, I want to hear about it and the government will take action. Together we can cut red tape and get Britain building.”
However, concerns are mounting as the review does not follow consultation best practices. Instead, it simply asks interested parties to highlight the regulations they do not like.
The UK Green Building Council (UK-GBC), which represents around 450 building firms, said there were significant concerns about the review.
Campaign and policy director John Alker added: “Has there ever been a consultation or review that is more pre-determined?
“It’s not called the ‘Review of Housebuilding Regulations’, it is called the Cutting Red Tape Review.”
Alker warned the way the review is structured means it is next to impossible for people to defend regulations they see as effective.
“There is this clichéd view that regulation is always bad for business and the idea that any kind of level playing field can act as a stimulus appears to be too nuanced for consideration,” he said.
Writing in its submission to the review, the GBC said it was concerned the government was trying to water down “environmental requirements, particularly EU rules such as the Habitats Directive and wider EU environmental permit requirements”.
The letter said: “The evidence and rationale for minimising the impact of house building on the environment has never been stronger.
“From carbon emissions and energy use, to the use of raw materials, fresh water and production of waste, the house building sector has a major environmental impact and it is absolutely right that regulation plays a role in driving changes in industry practice…
“The Government must not allow its laudable efforts to solve the social problem of housing shortage to create a huge and lasting legacy of environmental damage”.
The submission letter warned it would be counterproductive to water down the Habitats Directive, and said it counteracted the Conservative manifesto.
“House building has a particularly significant impact on local ecology, biodiversity and the natural environment and therefore any threat to the Habitats Directive is very worrying,” it stated.
“The Conservative Government has promised to be ‘the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better state than that in which we found it’.
“Further deregulation would be highly damaging and render this commitment meaningless.”
Additionally, the GBC said it was unhappy with the government’s claims that regulations were stopping new homes from being built.
“Fundamentally we do not accept that regulation serves to hold back house building,” the letter continued.
“In fact, further changes to the regulatory regime after a period of significant upheaval following the NPPF, Housing Standards Review, changes to zero carbon etc, are destabilising and unhelpful.
“Far more important is consistency of policy, certainty of the future trajectory of regulation and stability that encourages innovation and investment.”
A spokesperson for BIS said: “The government wants to remove unnecessary burdens on housebuilders while maintaining necessary protections.
“We encourage views from all parts of the sector and will publish the full findings from the first phase of the review in due course.”