Planning policy - section 3F: research

Appendix A: Survey

Survey Response and Analysis

Introduction

The survey sought the views of planning authorities across Scotland in order to learn from the experiences they have gained as a result of administrating current Section 3F policies. The aim was to benchmark current policy and procedures, and reveal where practical issues or concerns were being raised because of specific approaches. The survey was divided into three sections:

1. LZCGT Targets:

Addressing what LZCGT targets have been set; what factors and parameters were used to determine these levels; and to what extent local or regional contexts have influenced policy.

2. Evidence & Procedures:

Addressing what evidence, procedures and calculation methodologies are used to determine compliance; and what practical issues need to be addressed within these approaches.

3. Going Forward:

Addressing trends in LZCGT uptake; respective roles of planning and building standards and how they can coordinate efforts; and what additional support the Scottish Government could offer to afford clarity of expectation for all stakeholders.

Survey Response

The planning service in Scotland is primarily delivered by 32 local authorities and 2 national park authorities (the Cairngorms; Loch Lomond and the Trossachs). Each of these were invited to take part in the survey so that the researchers could better understand the practical implications of the current Section 3F Policy and what issues need to be addressed in developing a Scotland-wide Section 3F policy. 14 full survey responses were received; 3 of which were from different regional offices of the same planning authority. This response therefore represents 35% of potential respondents and a broad range of geographic contexts and regional approaches.

Section 1: LZCGT Targets

Key Points

• Clarity in terms of the target LZCGT contribution sought, how it is calculated, and the context in which the policy is applied is vital going forward.
• Good quality supplementary guidance is essential to raise awareness of the Section 3F policy, clarify expectations and designate compliance procedures.
• The majority of planning authorities defined the LZCGT contribution as a percentage of the percentage CO₂ emissions reductions sought through Scottish Building Standard 6.1: carbon dioxide emissions (Figure A1.1)
• Section 3F policy is applied to all new development with certain exceptions. In general these mirror the exceptions made to Standard 6.1.
• Typically there is a period between planning consent and building warrant consent when building design and technical details are refined. Compliance with Standard 6.1 is usually determined during this period through the submission of SAP/SBEM calculations to Building Standards.
• Information contained within these SAP/SBEM calculations is used as a means of calculating LZCGT contribution and determining compliance with Section 3F policy.
• LZCGT Target contributions vary considerably across planning authorities. The most frequent contribution recorded in this survey is 10% of the percentage CO₂ emissions reductions sought through Standard 6.1.
• Many planning authorities have taken advice from Scottish Government on the level of LZCGT contribution that should be sought, but there appears to be little understanding of how this figure was determined.
• Meeting the LZCGT target does not appear to be an issue (Figure A.2); but the difficulty of demonstrating compliance at the planning application stage is. This is because of the lack of availability of accurate SAP/SBEM data this early in the design process.

Question 1

Does your Local Development Plan or associated Supplementary Guidance QUANTIFY the contribution LZCGT should make in reducing GHG emissions?

(14 Respondents)

11 respondents (79%) indicated that their local authorities quantified the contribution LZCGT should make in reducing GHG emissions, 3 respondents (21%) indicated that theirs did not.

Questions 2, 2a, 2b

What is the current LZCGT contribution sought by your planning authority?

In what terms does your planning authority define this target?

Is this quantified LZCGT contribution to GHG emissions reductions applied universally to all applications or in only specific circumstances e.g. specific development types or those over a certain size?

(11 Respondents)

The majority of respondents (8/11) indicated that their planning authority defined the LZCGT contribution in terms of a percentage of the percentage CO₂ emissions reductions sought through Scottish Building Standard 6.1: carbon dioxide emissions (Figure A.1). The remaining respondents (3/11) indicated that the metric used was a percentage of the building energy demand or consumption. We can deduce therefore that all must use the SAP/SBEM calculation as a means of determining compliance.

The most frequent level of LZCGT contribution (3/10) sought was 10% of the percentage CO₂ emissions reductions sought through Scottish Building Standard 6 (Figure A.1). The current CO₂ emissions reductions sought through Standard 6.1 for Domestic Buildings is 45% relative to the 2007 standard (Scottish Government, 2019a). This LZCGT target therefore represents a 4.5% (10% of 45%) reduction in CO₂ emissions in absolute terms relative to the 2007 standard. If this 10% LZCGT target is maintained and the CO₂ emissions reduction target within building standards is improved to 60%; this would result in an automatic increase in absolute terms to a 6% (10% of 60%) reduction in CO₂ emissions. See Figure 4 for full Scotland wide distribution pattern.

The planning authority which sought a LZCGT contribution of 20% of the energy demand also required that new buildings deliver Section 7: sustainability standards at Gold Level Aspect 1 (CO₂ emissions reduction at 60% relative to the 2007 standard) and Silver Level Aspects 2 – 8 (Scottish Government, 2019a).

Most respondents report that the Section 3F policy is applied to all new development with certain exceptions, generally mirroring those exceptions in the Scottish Building Standard 6.1: carbon dioxide emissions (Scottish Government, 2019a):

a. alterations and extensions to buildings

b. conversions of buildings and change of use

c. non-domestic buildings and buildings that are ancillary to a dwelling that are standalone and have an area less than 50 m²

d. buildings, which will not be heated or cooled, other than by heating provided solely for the purpose of frost protection

e. limited life buildings which have an intended life of less than 2 years.

Two planning authorities noted other exceptions to Section 3F, these were:

f. where buildings are designed to such a high degree of fabric energy efficiency that minimal additional mechanisation is required (Passivhaus concept) (1/11)

g. where application of LZCGT would have a detrimental impact on the historic environment as detailed in an accompanying energy statement / design statement (1/11).

One respondent felt that going forward alterations, extensions and refurbishments should be included in Section 3F policy.

Question 3

Do applicants require any additional support from planning officers to help them understand and comply with your Section 3F policy? What form does this take?

(11 Respondents)

About a third of respondents (4/11) felt that applicants needed additional support from planning officers to help them understand and comply with the policy, particularly when it was first introduced. The need for help varied between applicants. One respondent reported that the planning officers themselves did not understand the policy, so could not enforce it. Another respondent referred all enquiries about SAP calculations to Building Standards for clarification.

Approximately half of respondents (6/11) felt that applicants did not need additional support from planning officers. Most of them (5/11) said this was because there was sufficient guidance available to applicants in the Local Development Plan (LDP) or Supplementary Guidance. Typically this guidance might include: information requirements, calculation processes, and a standardised compliance form to be submitted with the application. One respondent also noted that they took the opportunity to raise awareness of the requirements of the Section 3F policy during pre-application enquiries and meetings.

Another respondent noted that the Section 3F policy was new to their planning authority, and how best to implement it was still under discussion between the Planning Policy, Development Management and Building Standards. Their initial approach will be one of upfront engagement; flagging the policy during consideration of the application and applying a suspensive condition requiring details of LZCGT contribution as that becomes available. They also anticipate developing a standard template or spreadsheet for easy calculation of compliance.

Approximately half of respondents (5/11) commented on compliance procedures. The issue not necessarily being eventually meeting the LZCGT targets, but the difficulty of showing compliance at the planning application stage. It was noted that most planning applications do not include proposals for LZCGT and where applications do the standard of information provided is generally poor.

Because of the technical nature of the policy, compliance is typically demonstrated through submission of calculations based on SAP/SBEM. The process is one of self-certification, and the applicant will normally need to employ a qualified SAP/SBEM consultant and submit a statement of compliance. However, it was also widely recognised that the planning application stage is too early in the building design process to ask for detailed calculations which will only be finalised later for building standards. As a consequence, respondents reported that at the planning application stage they will ask applicants for basic information on energy conservation measures and their choice of LZCGT in order to determine basic policy compliance. This will usually take the form of an email to the applicant, highlighting Section 3F policy requirements and asking for further information on the type of LZCGT they propose to use.

Acknowledging the difficulty in timing, applicants are often given the choice of providing compliance documentation either as part of the application process or subject to a suspensive planning condition. One respondent stated that many applicants chose the latter path to compliance.

Another respondent stated that although they provided clear supplementary guidance, and they often applied the standard suspensive condition detailed therein; the calculations submitted often did not follow the methodology that had been set out or lacked enough information to accurately determine if the policy had been complied with. Another respondent felt that the compliance methodology was convoluted and confusing to all parties. They felt that a single route to demonstrate compliance at building standards would be preferable.

Question 4

In your opinion, how easy do applicants find meeting your current LZCGT contribution target?

(11 Respondents)

Most respondents (8/11) felt the current LZCGT target was neither too difficult nor too easy to meet. The issue was with demonstrating compliance and planning officers being able to understand the information that was submitted (Figure A.2).

Question 5

When preparing your LDP; what were the deciding factors and parameters used to determine the specified contribution of LZCGT to GHG emissions reductions? Were these factors local or national in origin?

(11 Respondents)

Approximately half of respondents (5/11) stated that the level of their LZCGT target was a product of guidance they had received from official sources including national legislation and guidance. In some cases this had been sought. For example one respondent stated that they had worked with Scottish Government planners to develop a methodology specifically appropriate for their context. In another case the entire policy and LZCGT target had been 'suggested' by Scottish Ministers when their LDP had been determined deficient because it lacked a LZCGT target. In this case the precise wording of the policy and LZCGT target (10% of the percentage CO₂ emissions reduction sought by Standard 6.1) was supplied by Scottish Ministers, and the council 'invited' to agree to the inclusion of this additional policy.

Approximately a quarter of respondents (3/11) admitted that their LZCGT target was a result of simply following the lead of other planning authorities. Whilst one respondent reported this had followed discussions with other planning authorities about their Section 3F policy, another respondent stated they had simply copied the Section 3F policy that another planning authority had been instructed to include by Scottish Ministers.

Approximately half of respondents (5/11) also reported that their LDP had included a Section 3F policy for some time and some had undergone fairly dramatic revisions. This is in part related to the fact that early adopters were working on the assumption that the timetable to zero-carbon building outlined in the Sullivan Report would be adopted and that LZCGT should play the pivotal role in achieving this target. In reality, neither of these assumptions proved true. Some of the responses indicate that there was at some level a basic misreading of the intentions of the Sullivan Report, the emphasis it placed on fabric energy efficiency and equipment efficiency in preference to LZCGT, and indeed it highlighting concerns with regards to the Section 3F policy (Sullivan, 2007, 2013).

One respondent reported that their original policy was written to reflect the timetable set out in the Sullivan Report. It appears from their response that they had presumed that the 30% increase in CO₂ emission reductions the Sullivan Report had called for between 2011 and 2013 should be met by LZCGT. This resulted in them adopting a policy that required a 15% increase per annum in the contribution of LZCGT to CO₂ emissions reduction. When in 2015, the Scottish Building Standards were revised and absorbed the increase in the CO₂ emission reduction target; they revised their policy to avoid an excessive increase in the proportion of CO₂ emission reduction being met by LZCGT. Their current LDP requirement of 5% of the percentage CO₂ reduction sought by Standard 6.1 was determined on the basis that it was considered the most reasonable figure.

Two respondents reported that their original Section 3F policies took a two-pronged approach in which there was a locally determined LZCGT target and additional Section 7 Sustainability requirements. One of these respondents described this as a staged approach which started with 10% LZCGT contribution to Energy Demand and Bronze Active, advanced to 15% LZCGT and Silver Active, and is currently 20% LZCGT, Gold Aspect 1 and Silver Aspects 2 - 8. The other respondent reported that they had since revised their policy and instead adopted a policy the Scottish Government had suggested to another planning authority. This had increased the LZCGT contribution to 10% of the percentage CO₂ emission reduction sought by Standard 6.1, and removed Section 7 requirements. The respondent felt this was an improvement; with clearer wording, greater clarity on the circumstances in which it would be applied and a clear focus on LZCGT rather than Section 7.

Another respondent stated that their policy was based on early guidance on sustainable building developed prior to the adoption of national CO₂ emission reduction standards. In 2010, their initial LZCGT target had been 10%, but by 2016 this had risen to 50% of the percentage CO₂ emission reduction sought by Standard 6.1. In other words they expect half of CO₂ emission reductions to be met by Fabric Energy Efficiency and half by LZCGT. Their definition of LZCGT included renewables, heat pumps, combined heat and power (CHP), district heating and notably, mechanical ventilation and heat recovery (MVHR).

Approximately a third of respondents (4/11) indicated that they had taken a balanced and restrained approach to setting their LZCGT target. One respondent reported that because this was a new policy in their region they had made a conscious decision to keep the percentage low and monitor thereafter. Their target is 15% of the percentage CO₂ emissions reduction sought by Standard 6.1. Another respondent stated that they had analysed their existing policy in relation to national guidance and what other planning authorities were doing. The target they arrived at was 20% of the percentage CO₂ emissions reduction sought by Standard 6.1 which they felt was in line with their previous policy.

Another respondent reported that there was no particular reason for their LZCGT target choice of 10% of the percentage CO₂ emissions reduction sought by Standard 6.1, other than it seemed a reasonable compromise. They stated:

'It was a balance between a figure which was large enough to be meaningful, but not so high as to be overly onerous and deter development, given that the housing market was in a delicate state at the time. A compromise between national priorities and local circumstance'

(Respondent 13)

They propose to raise this level of LZCGT contribution to 12% in their forthcoming LDP due in 2020. A further respondent stated they had deliberately chosen a low LZCGT target to help push a fabric first approach. They had tried to be clear with applicants that they were seeking to reduce CO₂ emissions through the provision of highly efficient buildings. Their LZCGT target was 20% of the energy demand as defined by SAP/SBEM. Therefore the better the insulation and fabric of the building, the lower the amount of LZCGT required. They were clear that LZCGT should not be 'eco-bling' bolted on to a poorly performing building.

One respondent reported that their council had reservations about the technical complexity and potential resource implications of assessing development proposals at the planning application stage. They had argued at the LDP Inquiry that energy efficiency and sustainable design matters were on the whole better addressed through the regulatory framework of Building Standards because they largely related to construction details and internal works. However they accepted their statutory obligation under Section 3F and adopted the suggested LZCGT target of 10% of the percentage CO₂ emissions reduction sought by Standard 6.1, because they were assured that at this level it would not impose any additional burdens on developers.

Question 6

When preparing your LDP; what were the deciding factors and parameters used in determining NOT to include a specific LZCGT contribution to GHG emissions reductions?

(3 Respondents)

The main reasons cited for not defining a specific LZCGT target were a lack of guidance from the Scottish Government as to what would be an appropriate level, and the lack of resources, expertise and understanding of the issues within the local authority that would allow them to assess what would be appropriate themselves. One of the respondents also stated that they lacked the resources to establish whether the policy had been complied with, and felt that these issues would be more appropriately dealt with by Building Standards.

Section 2: Evidence and Procedures

Key points

Evidence & Procedures

• The majority of respondents reported that their planning authority did not have clearly defined standard assessment procedures and calculation methodologies for determining whether applications comply with Section 3F Policy.
• Compliance is most commonly evidenced through a self-certification process; typically by submission of a statement containing detailed information about the proposed LZCGT.
• The information that might be requested includes: the type of LZCGTs proposed; the scale, location and visual impact of the installation; ongoing operation and maintenance issues; SAP/SBEM calculations; and a calculation to show compliance with the LZCGT target contribution.
• Where calculation methodologies have been defined these require two separate SAP/SBEM calculations; one for the building as designed with LZCGT, and one with the proposed LZCGT removed and replaced with pre-defined conventional systems. The values generated by these are substituted into a formula to calculate compliance.
• None of the formulae defined by respondents accurately defined the LZCGT target in terms of a percentage of the percentage reduction in CO₂ emissions sought by building standard 6.1.
• The standard of compliance evidence received is very variable in terms of format and content, even when planning guidance has been given and compliance procedures and calculations have been defined.
• Some planning officers use pre-application meetings and the application determination process as an opportunity to highlight to applicants the specific requirements of Section 3F policy, and in general the importance of sustainable design and carbon dioxide emission reduction.
• Approximately half of respondents aim for evidence of compliance to be submitted at the planning stage. However the majority of respondents accept that this is not practically feasible in many circumstances. This is because the detailed information needed to calculate the amount LZCGT contributes to overall CO₂ emissions reduction is simply not available at the planning stage.
• If information is not available at planning stage, the most common response is to apply a suspensive condition to the planning consent decision notice requiring that compliance documentation be submitted to planning prior to commencement on site.
• Many applicants prefer to submit Section 3F compliance documents at this later stage, because it fits better with their workflow and reduces duplication of effort in having to resubmit revised documents.

Implementation Issues

• Virtually all respondents reported that they had experienced some difficulties in applying their current Section 3F policy and procedures.
• Over half of respondents reported they had struggled to implement their Section 3F policy in a consistent and systematic way. Working with development management teams to raise awareness and provide guidance on how to apply the policy in practice has had a beneficial impact in this respect.
• Difficulties were reported in gaining developer cooperation with current Section 3F policies. Confusion primarily arises because different planning authorities have different Section 3F policy requirements and compliance procedures and calculation methodologies are often not clearly defined. A consistent Scotland-wide approach would improve this situation.
• A lack of clearly defined compliance requirements and calculations methodologies has resulted in the standard of evidence submitted to show compliance varying widely and being of a general poor quality.
• Many respondents stated that in the absence of clear guidance they didn't have sufficient knowledge and experience of the issues involved, and therefore felt ill-equipped to interpret the technical information submitted as proof of compliance.
• Two thirds of respondents reported that the main issue for them was attempting to implement a policy at the planning stage, when the information that was required to confirm compliance with the LZCGT target was typically not available until later in the design process during the building warrant stage.
• The use of suspensive conditions has resulted in a complex ongoing situation of monitoring the progress of developments and trying to gather evidence of compliance, and left planning in a vulnerable position with little or no means to force applicants to improve their proposals or effectively enforce compliance with Section 3F policy.
• Almost half of respondents had concerns about the strength of suspensive conditions and the subsequent ability to enforce compliance.
• Half of respondents would like to see improved inter-departmental cooperation between planning and building standards on the implementation of Section 3F policy. However it was noted that it is beyond the legal remit of building standards to take an active role in checking or enforcing compliance with any planning policy or condition.
• A third of respondents felt that whilst planning had a role in promoting the uptake of LZCGT; the LZCGT contribution target would be better suited to inclusion within the Scottish Building Standards than in Planning.

Question 7

Has your planning authority defined a standard procedure and calculation methodology for determining whether applications comply with Section 3F Policy requirements?

(14 Respondents)

Only 5 respondents (36%) indicated that their local authority had defined a standard procedure and calculation methodology for determining whether applications comply with Section 3F Policy requirements. The rest (64%) indicated that no standard procedures and calculation methodologies were in place (Figure A.3).

Question 8, 9

What evidence are applicants required to submit to show compliance with Section 3F Policy requirements and by what stage in the development management process?

Please describe the typical workflow patterns that planning officers follow in determining whether applications comply with Section 3F Policy requirements.

(13 & 12 Respondents)

Most respondents report that they expect compliance with Section 3F policy to be evidenced with a statement (9/13 Respondents). This is variously described as a design statement, energy statement, sustainability form or simply a statement to demonstrate compliance with Section 3F policy. Essentially it is a process of self-certification.

Some planning authorities are clearer than others in their planning guidance on what they expect to be included within this statement. Few appear to have standardised forms to complete. Typically the applicant will be asked to provide details about the proposed LZCGT e.g. the proposed type of LZCGT, the scale of the installation, where it is located, what is the visual impact, whether there are any potential negative impacts on the historic built environment, as well as ongoing maintenance and energy output of the LZCGT as evidenced by the manufacturer or supplier.

Quantification of the contribution LZCGT makes to CO₂ emission reduction requires more detailed information on a par with that included in SAP/SBEM calculations. It should be noted that SAP/SBEM calculations are used to establish the energy demand of a building, describe how this is met in practice and determine whether the building as a whole meets the CO₂ emission reduction target set by Building Standard 6.1: carbon dioxide emissions. SAP/SBEM calculations do not specifically calculate the contribution LZCGT makes to CO₂ emissions reduction.

Bearing this comment in mind; approximately half of respondents state that they require SAP/SBEM calculations as evidence (7/13 Respondents). Only a few of these respondents indicate that they require two alternative SAP calculations, with and without LZCGT, which can be compared and used to calculate the LZCGT contribution to CO₂ emission reduction. In such cases the calculation required to show compliance is typically set out in their planning guidance (See Question 10). One respondent commented that they received a wide range of material in various formats to evidence Section 3F policy, but 2 alternative SAP calculations tended to be the most frequent response from applicants.

Two respondents reported that their planning authority also required enhanced sustainability measures as part of Section 3F policy. These measures are detailed in Building Standards Section 7. These planning authorities looked for these measures being evidenced in the design, and asked for self-certification in the form of a Sustainability Label at the building warrant stage and again at completion.

One respondent indicated that only applicants for the Council Development Priority Sites were asked to submit an Energy Statement. All other developments were asked to incorporate CO₂ emission reduction measures and energy efficient design. Another respondent stated that only non-domestic applications had to complete their Sustainability Form.

Two respondents commented that, where possible, they flagged Section 3F policy requirements at an early stage in the planning application process and directed applicants towards the planning guidance on this issue. Approximately half of respondents (6/13) aim for evidence of compliance to be submitted at the planning stage, although many of them accept that this is not practically feasible in many circumstances. If information is received at the planning stage it is included in reports of handling or committee reports and formed part of the planning officer's assessment report. See Question 12 with regards to the potential benefits of having good information submitted early in the application process.

One respondent stated that some development management officers flag the policy at the planning stage, but ask simply for a statement to ascertain how the applicant intends to comply; leaving the need for firmer details about the LZCGT and its contribution to CO₂ emissions reduction for the purification of planning conditions. Another respondent reported that because they struggled in practice to obtain information at the planning stage; they took a pragmatic approach, and if LZCGT had been included, the application was assessed as meeting policy even if the exact percentage contribution had not yet been calculated and a condition applied to the decision notice.

There is a general acceptance among most respondents (10/13) that the information required to calculate the contribution of LZCGT to CO₂ emissions reduction is simply not available at the planning stage, because many of these technical decisions have yet to be made. Although one respondent also felt that the poor level of evidence submitted was in part due to developer apathy and lack of understanding of the Section 3F policy.

If information is not available at the planning stage, the most common response is to apply a suspensive condition to the planning consent decision notice (9/13 Respondents). Typically, this will require that information be submitted to planning, prior to commencement on site. One respondent supplied the current wording used for their standard condition in this respect:

"Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, a scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Council as Planning Authority that demonstrates how at least 10% of the current carbon emissions reduction set by the Scottish Buildings Standards will be met through the installation and operation of low and zero-carbon technologies. This scheme shall detail for each building:

a) the technology types

b) illustrate, through technical calculations, that these will meet at least the 10% reduction;

c) their siting and location; and

d) ongoing operation and maintenance.

Once approved, the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme and no individual unit shall be occupied until the scheme has been installed and operating."

(Respondent 14)

One respondent noted that given the option, many applicants prefer to submit Section 3F information at this stage, as the design has been finalised, information is available and the necessary SAP/SBEM calculations have been completed for Building Warrant applications. One respondent stated that they required applicants to submit an energy statement which they then asked Building Standards to verify.

One respondent reported that they require applicants to submit a copy of the sustainability label, as built SAP/SBEM calculations and the notification of completion of development to planning, prior to occupation. Another respondent, whose planning authority incorporated Section 7 requirements into their Section 3F policy, reported a more complex 3-staged process, requiring two forms of self-certification. At planning; they sought a commitment to the Section 7 requirements evidenced in the design and a statement on energy signed off by a SAP/SBEM assessor. At building warrant; they required self-certification with regard to Section 7 and an updated statement on energy signed off by a SAP/SBEM assessor which should reflect the requirements of Section 6. At completion; they demanded submission of the sustainability label and the updated 'as built' statement on energy certified by a SAP/SBEM assessor.

One respondent from a planning authority that did not currently specify a LZCGT target reported that they did not request any evidence or have any procedures to confirm compliance. Another respondent from a planning authority that did specify a LZCGT target described the evidence they requested but admitted that they currently did not apply the policy. A final respondent noted that this policy was a recent addition to their LDP and the evidence required for compliance, workflow and calculation methodologies were still under development.

Question 10

If your Section 3F Policy quantifies the contribution LZCGT should make to GHG emissions reductions, please describe the calculation method used to show compliance.

(10 Respondents)

Three respondents detailed their calculation methods. All three used two separate SAP/SBEM calculations as a means to determine the percentage of the CO₂ emission reduction that could be attributed to the use of LZCGT. The first SAP/ SBEM calculation defines the Dwelling Emission Rate (DER) / Building Emission Rate (BER) of the building as designed with LZCGT. This is the SAP/SBEM calculation used to determine if the building complies with Standard 6.1: carbon dioxide emissions. To determine the impact of the LZCGT, the second SAP/SBEM calculation removes the proposed LZCGT and replaces it with pre-defined conventional systems and recalculates the Dwelling Emission Rate (DERNT) / Building Emission Rate (BERNT) of the building with no LZCGT. Typically this SAP/SBEM calculation will fail to meet the requirements of Standard 6.1. These values are then substituted in a formula to determine whether the LZCGT contribution is in compliance with Section 3F policy.

The first of these respondents stated that they used the calculation outlined in Planning Advice Note PAN 84: Reducing Carbon Emissions in New Development, which is now obsolete (Scottish Government, 2008). The calculation contained in this document can be summarised by the formula:

LZCGT contribution to CO₂ emission reduction as an absolute percentage

Where

TER = Target Emissions Rate of the 'notional' dwelling or building. This is the baseline 2007 building regulation CO₂ emissions standard.

DER = Dwelling Emission Rate

DERNT = Dwelling Emission Rate with no LZCGT

When PAN84 was written this calculation gave an absolute percentage reduction in CO₂ emissions due to the use of LZCGT. However, in the intervening years the definition of the Target Emissions Rate (TER) has changed. Initially the Target Emissions Rate (TER) represented the baseline CO₂ emissions of the notional building built relative to the 2007 standards (with reference to Figure 7 the original definition of TER would equate to OER). The current Target Emission Rate (TER) defines the CO₂ emissions level for the notional building that the actual building must equal or better to pass SAP (DER ≤ TER to pass SAP). It is therefore obvious that this calculation is no longer valid. Further, the respondent had already indicated that they defined their LZCGT target as a percentage of the percentage CO₂ emissions reduction sought by Building Standard 6.1, not an absolute percentage reduction.

Although the second respondent did not reference PAN84, they outlined in their planning guidance the same calculation methodology. However, they did appear to recognise that it needed updating because Building Standards had been revised. They too had defined their LZCGT target as a percentage of the percentage CO₂ emission reduction sought by Building Standard 6.1, not an absolute percentage reduction.

In the third situation the planning authority clearly defines the calculation methodology and formula to be used to show compliance within their supplementary guidance. This included an instruction as to what should replace the LZCGT in the second SAP calculation to determine DERNT. The formula is described as providing the percentage reduction in carbon due to renewables and is given by:

The percentage reduction in carbon due to renewables

Where

DER = Dwelling Emission Rate

DERNT = Dwelling Emission Rate with no LZCGT

However the respondent also indicated in Question 2 that the planning authority framed their LZCGT contribution target in terms of a percentage of the energy demand as defined by SAP/SBEM.

This formula is in fact a variant of Formula 13 which in our analysis is used to define E%. It defines the LZCGT contribution to CO₂ emission reduction in terms of avoidance of a percentage of projected CO₂ emissions as calculated by SAP/SBEM, and given certain assumptions is a fair estimate of LZCGT contribution in terms of a percentage of the energy demand of the building as defined by SAP/SBEM.

One of the remaining respondents stated that they simply require that the LZCGT provide 10% of the energy requirement of the building as defined in the SAP/SBEM calculation. With a basic knowledge of SAP/SBEM calculations, this is easy enough to calculate. The remaining respondents were generally vague about the exact nature of the compliance calculation they are seeking. One respondent simply stated:

'The Statement should set out how the appropriate reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is to be achieved as a result of low and zero-carbon generating technologies using the Standard Assessment Procedure Energy Rating (SAP) for dwellings and the Simplified Building Energy Model (SBEM) for all other developments.'

(Respondent 6)

Another respondent noted that they had observed no single consistent approach to showing compliance.

The lack of a clear approach to calculating the contribution of LZCGT might be a result of the metric being difficult for stakeholders to easily comprehend (a percentage of the percentage CO₂ emissions reduction sought by Building Standard 6.1) or simply uneasiness on the part of planning officers of dealing with technical issues and mathematical formula. One respondent dismissed this question by simply saying technical requirements are met at the building warrant stage. Another respondent stated that SAP calculations required Building Standards scrutiny because it was hard for them to accurately assess the amount of CO₂ emission reduction that was actually secured by LZCGT.

Question 11

Have you experienced any difficulties in applying your current Section 3F policy or procedures? How might these be improved?

(12 Respondents)

Virtually all respondents (11/12) had experienced difficulties in applying their current Section 3F policy and procedures. The only respondent that did not report difficulties stated that they had only recently adopted the policy and could not really comment on the implementation so far, although they were monitoring the situation.

Over half of respondents (7/12) reported they had struggled to implement their Section 3F policy in a consistent and systematic way. Unfamiliarity with a new policy and the technical nature of the requirements may play a role in this. Several respondents noted there were inconsistences in the way the policy was being applied and admitted that there was no standard procedure to determine compliance. One respondent stated that their yearly monitoring had revealed that the policy was not being implemented as often as they would like. They were currently prioritising action on this and were seeing some improvements through working with development management teams to raise awareness and giving guidance on how to apply the policy.

Another respondent stated that even though they had a Section 3F policy which specified a LZCGT contribution, in practice it was not being applied because planning officers didn't have sufficient knowledge to understand the technical calculations that were being submitted. This need for support was a recurring theme; with almost half of respondents (5/12) uncomfortable in assessing this type of technical information. Several stated that in the absence of guidance they lacked basic knowledge and experience of the issues involved, as well as the technical ability to assess submitted information or calculate the CO₂ emission reduction themselves.

One respondent also reported that recent monitoring revealed there was an issue relating to conditions not being applied universally to all applications that fail to submit relevant documentation at the planning stage. Although where it was applied, the standard condition included in the supplementary guidance was used exclusively (see Question 8, 9). The same respondent noted that there was a lack of any guidance as to any technical or practical constraints that might warrant exemption from Section 3F policy.

A third of respondents (4/12) also reported issues relating to getting developers to cooperate and submit the relevant information. One respondent reported a bit of a push back from developers which had led them to not implementing their Section 3F policy. Another respondent felt it was difficult to challenge developers who hadn't submitted the required information. Some respondents suggest that getting applicants to submit information that had enough detail to be able to make a firm judgement at the planning stage was a challenge. One respondent felt all they could do was attach a planning condition to the consent, and trust that the applicant would comply with the policy and submit information later in the process. Another respondent took a pragmatic approach and determined that if LZCGT were included the application was in compliance, even if the percentage contribution had not been explicitly calculated.

One respondent stated that their monitoring suggested that the submission of energy statements was patchy, the information they contained varied widely and was generally poor, there was no standard process for determining whether an application met the requirements of the policy and LZCGT conditions were frequently not addressed. It was clear that applicants were not following guidelines contained in supplementary guidance. Some applicants submitted sustainability certificates whilst others submitted SAP calculations; but none submitted SAP calculations with and without LZCGT as instructed. It was therefore difficult for planning officers to ascertain if the developments met the LZCGT target contribution to CO₂ emissions reduction.

Two respondents raised issues relating to SAP calculations. One respondent stated that some applicants had a problem obtaining SAP calculations with and without LZCGT because of a software issue. This may have been an issue with a specific piece of software as we believe there should be no technical barriers to running two SAP calculations one with and one without LZCGT.

The other respondent reported that they had received requests from some non-domestic applicants for permission to use the new draft SAP10 carbon emissions factors for electricity. These new carbon emission factors reflect the decarbonisation of the national grid that has taken place over the past decade which puts electricity on a similar footing to natural gas. The council allowed this because it has resulted in very different and less carbon intensive energy strategies being proposed for buildings e.g. a change from gas-fired CHP to Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP) in a large 200 bed hotel. So, whilst they had experienced some other difficulties with the policy, they also felt they had a number of positive outcomes too.

In terms of improvement; one respondent felt that a consistent Scotland-wide approach would be beneficial as this would mean that developers would know what is expected of them in terms of policy requirements no matter where they were working. Another respondent suggested that a standard self-certification process and sign off would assure case officers that a building did indeed meet Section 3F requirements.

Half of respondents (6/12) would like to see improved cross department working between planning and building standards on this issue, perhaps integrating the policy across both planning and building standards. The majority of these respondents (4/12) also felt that the LZCGT contribution target would be better suited to inclusion within the Scottish Building Standards rather than Planning. The logic behind this conclusion was that building standards officers are familiar with technical issues, compliance calculations and complex SAP data, and applicants already have to submit SAP data to them as part of the building warrant process. Therefore, on a purely practical level it was considered sensible that building standards officers should be also given the responsibility of checking LZCGT compliance. It was felt this would avoid a lot of the confusion and duplication of effort that currently surrounds enforcing the policy and would probably improve compliance. (For more details about where planning and building standards should focus their efforts see Question 24).

Question 12

What problems, if any, have you experienced enforcing your Section 3F policy?

(11 Respondents)

Two thirds of respondents (8/11) reported that the main enforcement issue for them was attempting to implement a policy at the planning stage, when the information that was required to confirm compliance was typically not available until later in the design process during the building warrant stage. As a result they had to place suspensive conditions on notices of consent requesting information is submitted when available and before commencement on site. This resulted in a complex ongoing situation of monitoring the progress of developments and trying to gather evidence of compliance when the applicant had moved on to other issues with building standards. In practice, they felt that relying on suspensive conditions left planning officers in a vulnerable position when trying to enforce the policy. Some respondents felt that this disjoint between the policy being placed in the remit of planning and choices about energy strategy and material specification being taken at the building warrant stage had left them with little or no means to enforce compliance with the policy or force applicants to up their game.

One respondent highlighted that receiving good quality data at the planning stage could have a significant impact on the eventual outcome. If planning has sufficient information to be able to conclude that an application will not comply, it has the power to withhold planning consent and leverage a better solution from the applicant. They illustrated this point by relating an example of how an application for a fairly generic large drive-through restaurant had been completely revised because SBEM calculations were available to the planning officer. The result was a revised building that achieved an almost a 50% cut in CO₂ emissions beyond the current building regulations. If they had not had SBEM data until the building warrant stage they would not have been in a position to leverage this change from the applicant.

Almost half of respondents (5/11) had concerns about the strength of suspensive conditions and the subsequent ability to enforce compliance. One respondent stated that they had applied suspensive conditions but had not as yet implemented many of them so it was still too early to tell if this would cause enforcement issues. Another respondent stated that in their monitoring they could not determine whether applications that they had deemed not to comply with Section 3F had actually included LZCGT and simply not purified the suspensive condition as a matter of course. The data available to them through planning applications and building standards was simply not detailed enough.

Approximately a quarter of respondents (3/11) raised potential conflicts between Planning and Building Standards over implementing Section 3F policy. Two respondents highlighted the fact that there is no mandatory requirement for the use of LZCGT in the Scottish Building Standards, and this causes confusion for applicants.

Another respondent felt that planning and building standards need to work more closely with regards to CO₂ emissions reduction. They stated that most planning conditions were purified prior to building warrant, but as their authority was seeking as built confirmation of the LZCGT contribution the suspensive condition could not be purified until completion. They also noted that it is out with the remit of building standards to take an active role in checking or enforcing compliance with any planning policy or condition. Building standards will therefore not refuse to grant a building warrant on the basis that an application does not comply with a planning condition. Further building standards will not refuse to grant a completion certificate on the grounds of an outstanding planning condition. This could result in the difficult situation where a building is occupied prior to planning conditions being purified, and calls into question the strength of using a suspensive planning condition. They had yet to test the enforcement over this issue, but in conclusion felt that the Section 3F requirements would sit better as a mandatory part of the Scottish Building Standards (See Question 11).

The same respondent also raised the issue of continuity in enforcement. They used the example of a flagship development of a block of flats, which was given planning consent on the basis that all the flats would achieve Gold level Aspect 1: CO₂ emission. At building warrant this standard became an aggregate level for the entire block, with 53% of flats failing to reach the Gold standard and a huge disparity between individual flats. Further the entire benefit of the 20% LZCGT accrued to the landlord not the tenants. This was not the intention of the Section 3F policy with regards to reduction of CO₂ emissions and fuel poverty.

One respondent reported that they knew of no enforcement activity being applied but questioned the enforceability of the policy. Another respondent simply stated that they had no need to enforce conditions as they were not actively applying their Section 3F policy.

Section 3: Going Forward

Key Points

LZCGT Trends

• Photovoltaics were the most frequently specified LZCGT; followed by ASHPs, MVHR, Solar Thermal, Biomass and GSHPs in descending order (Figures A.5 & A.6).
• However ASHPs have seen the greatest increase in uptake over the past 5 years, followed by Photovoltaics, Biomass, MVHR, GSHPs, District Heating and Solar Thermal in descending order (Figures A.5 & A.6).
• One respondent reported that Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP) had really begun to take off in the non-domestic sector, particularly large-scale offices and hotels, over the last year.
• The majority of respondents thought planning authorities should be able to promote their preferred regional, local or site specific solutions to GHG emissions reductions (Figure A1.7).
• Approximately three quarters of respondents also thought that planning authorities should be able to compel new developments to link to existing local large scale LZCGT initiatives or heat networks in order to support such schemes (Figure A1.8). However this was not without serious reservations about how this would work in practice.
• The local context was identified as a potential barrier to the development of large scale LZCGT and heat networks.
• Low density rural communities were seen as not conducive to the development of shared heat networks.
• Large scale LZCGT and heat networks would need to be delivered upfront so that developers can be confident they will be in place from the first day of occupation. This raises questions about who would be responsible for the planning, financing, delivery and ongoing maintenance of this energy infrastructure.
• Liberalisation of the energy market means that the choice of energy provider is up to the developer or occupant, and there is no legal means for planning authorities to compel connection to or delivery of specific energy services.
• There was concern that this type of policy would restrict developers and future occupants to one energy provider with no choice to change to a cheaper supplier or a less carbon intensive system in the future.
• Danish systems are often cited as exemplars for Scotland to follow, but these are all municipally owned and run on a not for profit basis.
• Currently it was felt that planning professionals lacked the technical knowledge, skillset and expertise to make sensible joined-up decisions about large scale LZCGT and heat networks.

LZCGT Target

• Section 3F policy seeks to define, and over time increase, the level of CO₂ emission reductions that are achieved through the deployment of LZCGT in new buildings. Overall CO₂ emission reduction requirements for new buildings are defined by Scottish Building Standard 6.1: carbon dioxide emissions.
• Whilst not rejecting the use of LZCGT; several respondents advocated strongly for taking a fabric first response to reducing CO₂ emissions in new buildings. They underlined the need for any LZCGT target to be a minimum standard rather than an aspirational one, so that it would not interfere with a fabric first approach.
• Clearly defined policy and targets were considered essential so that all stakeholders understand what is expected of them In this respect a Scotland wide standard would provide clarity for architects and developers, the majority of who work across planning authority boundaries.
• Although respondents felt there was a need to accelerate CO₂ emission reduction; the majority of respondents felt there was no case to be made for planning policies that attempt to accelerate the reduction in CO₂ emissions beyond that required by Building Standards (Figure A.10).
• It was considered essential for successful engagement with stakeholders that Planning and Building Standards have a clear and consistent message to avoid contradiction and confusion.
• Half of respondents questioned the positioning of the LZCGT policy within the remit of Planning because they felt it could be more effectively applied and enforced through Building Standards.

Respective Roles of Planning and Building Standards

• The need for better collaboration between planning and building standards on policies relating to CO₂ emission reduction was highlighted by several respondents.
• All respondents felt that Planning should concentrate their efforts in the fight to reduce GHG emissions and mitigating Climate Change on Landscape Scale Planning, Sustainable Planning, Large Scale LZCGT, Architectural Design, and Architectural Design Details. Approximately two thirds of respondents also felt Planning had a major role to play in Building Scale LZCGT and Assessing Sustainability (Figure A.11)
• Virtually all respondents felt that Building Standards should concentrate their main efforts on Fabric Energy Efficiency, Building Scale LZCGT, Assessing Energy Consumption, Assessing CO₂ emission reductions and Assessing the Contribution of LZCGT. Approximately three quarters of respondents also felt they had a major role in Assessing Sustainability and Architectural Design Details (Figure A.11).
• A joint responsibility was suggested for Assessing Sustainability. A less even split of responsibility was suggested for Large Scale LZCGT, Building Scale LZCGT, Architectural Design and Architectural Design Detailing (Figure A.11).
• Several respondents felt that Planning's role was more aligned to delivering CO₂ emission reduction through good design, placemaking and strategic planning of large scale LZCGT and heat networks where appropriate; and this complemented the role of Building Standards with its more technical regulations that ensure buildings meet CO₂ emissions reduction targets.
• Planning is well-placed to prioritise action on climate change and the reduction of CO₂ emissions at an early stage in the design process. Engaging with applicants and developers and obtaining their commitment to these aspirations is fundamental to success in this area.
• Early engagement with applicants, either through pre-application advice or during the process of determining planning applications, can be used to advise applicants of their responsibilities in relation reducing energy consumption and CO₂ emissions at a stage where it could positively influence design responses.
• If planning and building standards officers are to play an active role in shaping responses to climate change they need proper training with regards to these issues to enable them to offer better informed advice to applicants and developers.
• Virtually all respondents thought the development of Scotland-wide sustainable design guidelines and simple assessment procedures would be useful for both planning officers and applicants to clarify expectations (Figure A.12).
• Development of Scotland-wide Design Guidelines would be welcomed in all subject categories. These included: Sustainable Urban Planning; Sustainable Rural Planning; Sustainable Building Design; Large Scale LZCGT; Energy Efficient Architectural Design; Sustainable Construction, Materials and Embodied Energy; Fabric Energy Efficiency; and Small Scale LZCGT (Figure A.13).
• Clarity in terms of the target LZCGT contribution sought, how it is calculated, and the context in which the policy is applied is vital going forward.

Question 14

How would you characterise your planning authority area?

(13 Respondents)

Respondents were asked to select all that were relevant to their planning authority area. Six respondents selected more than one response. Of the remaining seven respondents, three indicated they were responsible solely for urban environments; and one apiece indicated they were solely responsible for suburban, rural, and remote rural environments (Figure A.4).

Question 15, 16

With what frequency have you encountered these different types of LZCGT deployed in relation to Section 3F Policy within your planning authority area?

How has the uptake of these technologies changed over the last five years?

(11 Respondents)

The trends in frequency and uptake of each LZCGT observed by the planning officers that responded to the survey are detailed in Figure A.5. It should be noted that respondents were asked specifically to denote LZCGT deployed in relation to Section 3F Policy, not other large scale commercial developments such as wind farms or solar arrays.

This data was further analysed to determine which LZCGT were most commonly encountered (responded to Question 15 as occasionally, frequently or ubiquitously), most frequent specified (responded to Question 15 as frequently or ubiquitously) and had increased in uptake the most in the last 5 years (Question 16 as increased or increased substantially). These results are summarised in Figure A.6.

The most commonly encountered LZCGT were photovoltaics (11/11) and ASHP (11/11), closely followed by GSHP (10/11). Over half of respondents reported that MVHR (7/11), Biomass (7/11) and Solar Thermal (6/11) were also relatively common. Photovoltaics (8/11) were the most frequently specified LZCGT according to the respondents, followed by ASHP (5/11), MVHR (4/11), Solar Thermal (2/11), Biomass (2/11) and GSHP (1/11). However ASHP (8/11) had seen the greatest increase in uptake over the past 5 years, followed by photovoltaics (6/11), biomass (6/11), MVHR (5/11), GSHP (5/11), District Heating (4/11) and Solar Thermal (3/11).

Question 17

Do you have any further observations about trends in LZCGT in relation to Section 3F Policy, or have you encountered emergent technologies not detailed above?

(2 Respondents)

Two respondents made further comments with regards to LZCGT trends they had observed over the past 5 years.

The first respondent worked primarily within a urban and suburban environment. They reported that they had seen the use of Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP) really begin to take off in the non-domestic sector, particularly large-scale offices and hotels, over the past 7 months. They also commented that as a matter of course they do not consider gas-fired CHP as a LZCGT, so if applicants used this they would still be required to meet their LZCGT target by other means. They also raised two reservations that they had with specific LZCGT. Firstly, in respect to photovoltaics, they were noticing in some cases the landlord not the occupant was benefitting from the installation. Secondly they had some public health concerns with regards to the need to change or clean the filters used in MVHR units, and whether householders would be aware of this ongoing requirement. Finally they felt there was a lot of untapped potential in Waste Water Heat Recovery which needed to be explored.

The second respondent commented that further research may be needed to consider the impact that a reduction in space heat demand due to an increase in fabric energy efficiency will have on the deployment of LZCGTs and their cost effectiveness.

Question 18

How important is it that planning authorities should be able to promote their preferred regional, local or site specific solutions to GHG emissions reductions e.g. the use of local renewable energy resources, heat networks etc.?

(13 Respondents)

The majority of respondents (8/13) felt it was important that planning authorities should be able to promote their preferred regional, local or site specific solutions to GHG emissions reductions (Figure A.7)

Question 19

Do you think that planning authorities should be able to compel new developments to link with existing local large scale LZCGT initiatives or heat networks?

(13 Respondents)

The majority of respondents (10/13) felt that planning authorities should be able to compel new developments to link to existing local large scale LZCGT initiatives or heat networks in order to support such schemes (Figure A.8). However this was not without serious reservations about how this would work in practice.

Question 20

What are the barriers preventing planning authorities from developing these types of policies?

(12 Respondents).

Discourse was roughly split between reservations relating to the practicalities of developing large scale LZCGT initiatives and heat networks, and concerns about the potential political and legal ramifications of attempting to compel developers and occupants to use these networks.

A third of respondents (4/12) raised the issue of context in relation to large scale LZCGT and heat networks. One respondent stated that as all planning authorities vary in terms of geography, scale of development and natural resources, each needs to be able to develop policies to suit their particular context. Several respondents (3/12) reported there was a lack of opportunity for large scale LZCGT and heat networks in their locale. One respondent stated that the rural context was simply not conducive to shared schemes. This is because of the low density and the overall scale of new development in these communities. Development in rural areas usually takes the form of individual new buildings constructed by a number of small scale developers; rather than large scale development constructed by a single developer. Another respondent reported that in their area there were only a few large scale LZCGT schemes and highly localised heat networks that new developments could potentially tap into. As a result they felt that the most they could ask of developers was to consider feasibility, or potentially include ducting on the possibility that a heat network be developed in the future. The latter would incur an additional cost in construction.

Half of respondents (6/12) were concerned about the practicality of delivering large scale LZCGT and heat networks, and the implications of attempting to compel developers and consumers to connect to these.

A third of respondents (4/12) raised potential issues relating to the planning, financing and delivery of large scale LZCGT and heat networks. They concluded that in practice the concept would require the energy infrastructure to be delivered upfront, so that the developer would be assured it would be in place from the first day of occupation. If the municipality was not responsible for the planning, financing and delivery of such schemes; then the question is, who would fund it, implement it in a timeframe to suit the new development and see to its ongoing maintenance. Respondents (2/12) thought upfront costs and implementation issues were a significant barrier to the development of large scale LZCGT and heat networks and questioned the viability of such schemes in the eyes of developers. In particular, capital investment in heat infrastructure was considered prohibitive for small low density new builds with no economies of scale.

One respondent discussed the energy infrastructure developed as part of a prestigious urban redevelopment project. They stated that this had only been possible because of the scale of the development, the long lead time and crucially the local authority had control as the landowner. They could therefore compel the developer to come forward with an energy partner to deliver the energy infrastructure. Although generally considered a success, it had not been without issues, some of which still had to be resolved, notably those surrounding non-domestic rates. Another respondent spoke about a large-scale Energy Project which included the proposed development of a heat network making use of waste heat from local industrial processes. Unfortunately this is currently stalled, with potential projects being pursued through the Council's Investment Zone Bid.

Respondents (2/12) were also concerned that this type of planning policy would restrict developers and future occupants to one energy provider. In the UK's deregulated energy market this would mean persuading occupants to give up their right to change to a cheaper energy provider. One respondent explained that the Danish schemes that were often cited as exemplars for Scotland to follow were all municipally owned and run on a not for profit basis. This respondent did not see this happening in Scotland, and warned that if zones were carved up for the private sector they would definitely not be run on a not for profit basis. Consequently, these respondents questioned how the government would ensure the best value for money for citizens forced into these schemes, and whether it was reasonable to insist that new developments link to local large scale LZCGT and heat networks at all, if developers could provide their customers with cheaper options. One respondent observed that the capital cost of gas was still lower than LZCGT such as heat pumps or CHP supplied district heating, and there was still a lack of clarity on the proposed ban on new gas grid connections from 2025.

A third of respondents (4/12) simply stated that planning authorities lack the legal power to take this sort of action. Liberalisation of the energy market means that the choice of energy provider is up to the developer or occupant, and there is no legal means for planning authorities to compel connection to or delivery of specific energy services. This legal position would need to change if the government were to pursue this idea; however it might make the proposition of providing large scale LZCGT and heat networks more attractive for energy providers as it would reduce their risk. One respondent also had concerns about the proliferation of small energy companies, how the government would ensure the integrity of these large energy infrastructures, and who would become the owner of last resort if these companies were to fail.

Because of these practical and legal issues; respondents felt that there would be resistance from both developers and the public to planning policies that compelled new developments to link to large scale LZCGT and heat networks. One respondent felt this push back would continue until there was Scotland-wide level playing field in respect to this, and in their opinion that would need a change in statutory legislation.

Almost half of respondents (5/12) were acutely aware that new policies would require building technical knowledge and expertise within their departments to enable them to make sensible joined up decisions about large scale low and zero carbon energy infrastructures. This would have resource implications. It would require raising the awareness of planning professionals of LZCGT initiatives and heat networks through training and connecting with experts in the field. Currently it was felt that planning professionals lacked the technical knowledge, skillset and expertise to make these types of decisions. They also lack the resources and capacity to monitor or enforce these measures.

Respondents (2/12) also felt that the development of these types of policy would need political support. One respondent commented that local elected members were not very proactive on climate change and viewed planning as obstructive to local development and the economy. Another respondent stated that the lack of clarity at a national level with regards to grant funding and financing for heat networks meant that volume housebuilders were not engaged with the feasibility of such projects

Question 21

How important is it that the contribution LZCGT plays in delivering the CO2 emissions reductions required by Section 6 of the Scottish Building Standards be QUANTIFIABLY specified in Planning Policy? Why do you hold this view?

(13 Respondents)

54% of respondents (7/13) thought it was important that the contribution of LZCGT be quantifiably specified in planning policy. However 15% of respondents (2/13) thought it very unimportant and a further 31% of respondents (4/13) were ambivalent about its importance (Figure A.9). When comments were considered this fairly even split between those who felt it was important to quantify a target LZCGT contribution at planning and those who didn't was more clearly defined.

Of those who expanded on their reasons for holding a particular view, approximately half of respondents (5/11) were generally supportive of quantifying the contribution of LZCGT to CO₂ emissions reduction within planning policy. Several of these respondents (3/11) felt the LZCGT target was crucial and it enabled them to effectively evaluate the LZCGT measures deployed. In addition they also considered it a useful means of quantifying and monitoring the overall effectiveness of Section 3F policy.

Several respondents also (3/11) thought that a clearly defined target was essential so that all stakeholders understood what was being sought. Although one of these respondents added that a Scotland wide standard would be preferable to the current situation where different regions had different requirements because it would provide clarity and it would be easier for volume housebuilders and developers to respond to.

Whilst not rejecting the use of LZCGT completely; two respondents (2/11) advocated very strongly for a fabric first approach to CO₂ emission reduction in new buildings. Both respondents were of the opinion that improving building fabric energy efficiency was the most cost effective means of tackling CO₂ emissions. As a result they both supported incentivising developers to take a more hierarchical approach towards emission reduction which prioritised fabric energy efficiency over the deployment of LZCGT. Although unconcerned whether the LZCGT target was set by planning or building standards; one of these respondents underlined the need for any target to be a minimum standard so that it would not interfere with a fabric first approach.

Over half of respondents (6/11) reflected on the respective roles and skillsets of Planning and Building Standards in reducing CO₂ emissions, and questioned the positioning of this LZCGT policy within the remit of Planning. One respondent concluded that Planning was better positioned to deliver CO₂ emission reduction through good design and placemaking; although they also acknowledged planning had an important role in delivering large scale LZCGT and heat networks where applicable. This was seen as complementing the role of Building Standards with its more technical regulations that ensure buildings meet CO₂ emissions reduction targets.

On consideration of all the issues, over a third of respondents (4/11) felt that Section 3F policy was better suited to inclusion in Building Standards rather than Planning. In particular they felt that its current positioning led to duplication of effort and unnecessary work that could be avoided. One respondent plainly stated that at a fundamental level they thought that the delivery of these worthy targets and ambitions has been made more complicated and difficult by trying to give planning a responsibility that is technically better delivered through the building standards process only.

Comments were also received that alluded to the difficulties surrounding implementation, verifying compliance and enforcement already discussed (Section 2: Evidence and Procedures). One respondent considered it vital that should LZCGT policy remain in the provenance of Planning, there needed to be an official and certifiable way to demonstrate compliance at the planning application stage. Two other respondents did not see the need for the LZCGT contribution to be quantified at the planning level at all, since they felt this could be better accomplished through building standards.

A further respondent stated that Scottish Building Standards relating to CO₂ emission reductions were applied and enforced effectively and that should be sufficient; if not, then the contribution of LZCGT should be addressed directly through the Scottish Building Standards.

Question 22

Do you think there is a case to be made for Scotland wide Planning Policies that attempt to accelerate the reduction in CO₂ emissions beyond the current Scottish Building Standards?

Why do you hold this view? How might this be best achieved?

(13 Respondents)

54% of respondents (7/13) felt there was no case to be made where planning policy should attempt to accelerate CO₂ emission reduction beyond that called for in Scottish Building Standard 6.1 CO₂ emissions (Figure A.10). 38% of respondents (5/13) disagreed and felt there was a case to be made. One respondent was undecided but the comment they left was quite negative to the concept.

Of those who expanded on their reasons for holding this view, a quarter of respondents (3/12) were keen to see planning take action to accelerate CO₂ emission reduction in response to the climate emergency. One respondent reported that their urban local authority had led the way in promoting CO₂ emissions reduction in new buildings since 2010. During this time they have pushed the development industry to deliver better quality buildings and have required new buildings to go beyond building standards. With the recently declared climate emergency, they acknowledge that new buildings need to go further. They also recognise that the current building standards will change and demands will increase over the 10 year timeframe of the local development plan (LDP). The role of the LDP is therefore seen to be one of setting high targets and meeting this pace of change. They are currently consulting on the requirement that all new building be net zero carbon. Another respondent stated that the technologies and materials were readily available to go beyond the current position of building standards on CO₂ emission reductions and significant impacts could be made given the right impetus. They felt developers were stalling because of costs.

A third respondent suggested planning could accelerate CO₂ emission reductions by developing a consistent sustainable design approach, with supplementary guidance advising developers on issues such as location, siting, design and materials. Many planning authorities already provide some basic supplementary guidance relating to this approach in an attempt to promote better design choices (See Question 25 for more details).

One respondent was keen to remind us that that the Section 3F policy does not seek to increase CO₂ emission reduction, just the proportion of this that is achieved through LZCGT. Another respondent clearly stated that planning simply did not have the remit to go beyond other legislative standards.

Just under half of respondents (5/12) felt that the most logical and straightforward way to increase CO₂ emission reduction is to simply increase the amount required by Scottish Building Standard 6.1: CO₂ emissions. One respondent stated that Section 3F policy was useful in promoting general awareness of the role LZCGT could play in reducing CO₂ emissions, but had yet to be applied successfully by any Scottish planning authority. Two respondents went further and suggested Section 3F should be removed from Scottish planning policy, to avoid duplication of effort and unnecessary work. They felt that building standards were sufficient to the task and offered a consistent national target for CO₂ emissions reduction. Taking this approach would also avoid potentially contradictory targets and information being issued from planning and building standards.

Just under half of respondents (5/12) clearly expressed the need for clarity and consistency in policy between different planning authorities and between planning and building standards. One respondent simply stated:

'I think it would be better to simply increase the amount required by building standards and remove it from planning instead of duplicating it. However if it is to be the responsibility of Planning I think this is best achieved by having a national policy requiring it in order to contribute effectively to the commitments of the Scottish Government rather than leaving it to local government and allowing for disparity.'

(Respondent 2)

Although these respondents felt there was a need to accelerate CO₂ emission reduction, they were also clear that it would unhelpful and confusing to have planning and building standards set different targets in this respect. It made no sense to them to consider doing so as it would be wasteful of public resources. They stated that it is essential for successful and productive engagement with stakeholders that planning and building standards have a clear and consistent message to avoid contradiction and confusion.

Two respondents thought there was scope for collaboration on this issue between planning and building standards. One respondent stated that local authorities would benefit from best practice guidance on how to achieve this type of joint working, including the resource implications. The other respondent suggested that targets should be set that are appropriate to meet the challenge of climate change management at the planning stage, but building standards be empowered to enforce compliance.

Question 23

Are there opportunities for taking a different approach to reducing energy consumption and CO₂ emissions at the Planning stage, which might accelerate change whilst not necessarily clashing with Building Standards? What might these be?

(12 Respondents)

A third of respondents (4/12) replied with general suggestions about how policy and process could be used to achieve these aims. One respondent suggested that all planning policies should reference the impact on climate change and CO₂ emissions reduction; so there is no misunderstanding the priority that is being given to this issue. Another respondent thought that in general, planning authorities are better placed to promote and champion the practical means of achieving reductions in energy consumption and CO₂ emissions, than compelling compliance to specific targets. This respondent felt planning policies have the potential to promote and encourage developers to adopt alternative energy solutions or adhere to Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategies (LHEES). A third respondent felt the process could be used to advise applicants of their responsibilities in relation reducing energy consumption and CO₂ emissions at a stage where it could positively influence design responses.

'Certainly pre-application advice and the process of determining planning applications should be used to advise developers of the targets that they will have to meet through the determination of their building warrant and to tell them to check out what this may mean for the design of their project.'

(Respondent 12)

The fourth respondent emphasised that it was important that the planning implications of LZCGT be captured during the planning permission process and not applied retrospectively. Planning officers could potentially flag any building standard requirements for specified LZCGT as a way of front-loading the system and avoiding retrospective changes (see Question 25).

A third of respondents (4/12) focused on design. Two respondents suggested planning could develop a comprehensive sustainable design approach, with supplementary guidance advising developers on issues such as location, siting, design and materials (See Question 25 for more details). One of these also suggested the better use of design tools such as design briefs to set out what the planning authority expects of new development in terms of reducing energy consumption and CO₂ emissions. A third respondent suggested developing a formal national process of self-certification, whilst the fourth commented that they had referenced nationally recognised sustainable design standards (EcoHomes, BREEAM and CEEQUAL) in previous local development plans to promote energy conservation and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

A quarter of respondents (3/12) focused on LZCGT. One respondent thought there should be increased permitted development rights for micro-renewables, subsidies for private sector adoption of renewable solutions and a public sector commitment that all properties include micro-renewables. Two respondents discussed the potential implementation of district heating schemes. One of these respondents thought more could be done to plan developments that leant themselves to the development of heat networks i.e. high density developments close to potential heat sources. The other respondent was more sceptical about the benefits of district heating and thought we needed to rigorously question our assumptions in this area. They also felt that if it was decided to proceed with district heating at a scale beyond individual developments, then that would require proper public intervention with the resources and expertise to deliver it.

One respondent thought it might be worthwhile investigating the potential of an offset fund, as an allowable solution mechanism that developers could pay into if a new building were for some reason unable to meet its entire CO₂ emission reduction target. (This is unlikely at the current 45% CO₂ emission reduction target, but may become more relevant as we near net zero carbon). The money from such funds would be used for carbon saving projects.

A quarter of respondents (3/12) simply thought the best way to address this issue was through building standards. If these standards needed to be more ambitious then that change should happen. One of these respondents suggested that a fairly swift and easy action that could be taken was to make the currently optional higher sustainability standards of Section 7 of the building standards mandatory, when they are next revised. This respondent also felt that colleagues from planning and building standards would benefit from proper training with regards to these issues to enable them to make better informed decisions.

Question 24

Given the current Climate Crisis, it is important that everyone contributes to reducing GHG emissions and mitigating Climate Change; but on what specific issues do you think Planning and Building Standards should focus their efforts to best achieve these aims?

(12 / 13 Respondents)

With reference to Figure A.11; all respondents felt that Planning should concentrate their main efforts on Landscape Scale Planning (13/13), Sustainable Planning (13/13), Large Scale LZCGT (12/12), Architectural Design (13/13) and Architectural Design Details (13/13). Approximately two thirds of respondents also felt Planning had a major role to play in Building Scale LZCGT (8/13) and Assessing Sustainability (8/12). Only one respondent felt that Assessing Energy Consumption (1/12), Assessing CO₂ emission reductions (1/12) or Assessing the Contribution of LZCGT (1/12) and no respondents felt that Fabric Energy Efficiency (0/13) should be a specific focus for Planning.

All or nearly all respondents felt that Building Standards should concentrate their main efforts on Fabric Energy Efficiency (13/13), Building Scale LZCGT (12/13), Assessing Energy Consumption (12/12), Assessing CO₂ emission reductions (12/12) and Assessing the Contribution of LZCGT (12/12). Approximately three quarters of respondents also felt they had a major role in Assessing Sustainability (8/12) and Architectural Design Details (8/13). Approximately a third of respondents also felt Building Standards had a role in Large Scale LZCGT (5/12), Architectural Design (4/13). Only one respondent felt that Sustainable Planning (1/12), and no respondents felt that Landscape Scale Planning (0/13) should be a specific focus for Building Standards.

A joint responsibility was suggested for Assessing Sustainability (Planning 8/12 & Building Standards 9/12). A less even split of responsibility was suggested for Large Scale LZCGT (Planning 12/12 & Building Standards 5/12), Building Scale LZCGT (Planning 8/12 & Building Standards 12/12), Architectural Design (Planning 13/13 & Building Standards 4/13) and Architectural Design Detailing (Planning 13/13 & Building Standards 9/13).

Question 25

What specific functions can Planning perform at an early stage in the design and development process to help reduce GHG emissions, which would be difficult or impossible to apply effectively at the Building Warrant stage?

(11 Respondents)

Over 80% of respondents (9/11) made reference to planning and design decisions taken either by the planning authority in the development of their local development plan (LDP), early in design development process or during the planning application process. One respondent highlighted a need for local policy guidance on how to design developments that would be sustainable in the long-term.

Two respondents referenced issues in the category of Landscape Scale Planning. These included decisions relating to climate mitigation and adaption, flood risk, environmental impact, landscaping, tree planting and biodiversity. One respondent considered tree planting should be a requirement for all new development and sufficient space allocated to such in proposals. This included town centre and industrial development.

Three respondents referenced issues in the category of Sustainable Planning. These included decisions relating to placemaking, location, connectivity and transport. The appropriateness of the development and its location and connectivity to users was raised by all these respondents as a principle of sustainable planning. One respondent suggested avoiding development in isolated rural locations with little in the way of transport links. However they also recommended that the Scottish Government, Local Authorities and developers be required to invest more in public transport, cycle paths and paths. Reflecting on the suggestion that high density development is more sustainable; one respondent considered the possibility of reducing privacy and parking standards provided that the development is high quality in terms of placemaking and associated public transport is available. They also suggested requiring the provision of infrastructure for electrical vehicle charging points.

Two respondents referenced issues in the category of Large Scale LZCGT, primarily focused on strategic planning and the development of Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategies (LHEES). It was considered that gains could be made by the thinking strategically about the development of large scale LZCGT and heat networks; for example by identifying and supporting potential synergies between neighbouring developments with shared or complementary heating needs and clustering development accordingly.

Four respondents referenced issues in the category of Building Scale LZCGT. One respondent stated that the planning process should be used to flag potential opportunities to incorporate LZCGT into the design. The other three respondents were keen to ensure that developers accurately reflect building scale LZCGT at the design stage; so that the planning implications are captured during the planning application process, rather than applied retrospectively. This is especially important for external LZCGT plant because there might be a need to discuss the appropriateness of the site location or screening.

Four respondents referenced issues in the category of Architectural Design & Architectural Design Detailing. They discussed implementing practical passive design responses that utilise the topographical, environmental and micro-climatic features of a site to minimise energy consumption. In particular they mentioned appropriate siting, shelter, solar orientation, solar gain, massing, scale and materials. One respondent suggested that planning guidance could give advice on these measures and material choices to encourage developers to consider the whole life cycle of the building.

Approximately a quarter of respondents (3/11) commented on the planning process. Two of these respondents thought that planning played more of an advisory role, facilitating discussions on feasibility and influencing the choices developers made with respect to different types of LZCGT and other carbon mitigation measures at an early stage in the design process. Underlying these comments was a presumption that firm commitment to any particular option would not be reached until the building warrant stage, whereupon building standards would ensure greenhouse gas emission reduction targets are met. The other respondent stated they could simply apply planning policy effectively.

Question 26

Would the development of Scotland wide sustainable design guidelines and simple standard assessment procedures be of use to planning officers and applicants to clarify expectations in relation to sustainable building design or Section 3F policy?

(13 Respondents)

Nearly all respondents (12/13) thought the development of Scotland-wide sustainable design guidelines and simple assessment procedures would be useful for both planning officers and applicants to clarify expectations (Figure A.12). The one remaining respondent was undecided.

Question 27

If design guidance and assessment procedures were defined at a Scotland wide level, which of the following do you think would be useful to planners and applicants at the design and planning stage?

(13 Respondents)

Scotland-wide Design Guidelines were welcomed by the majority of respondents in all subject categories (Figure A.13). Design guidance relating to Sustainable Urban Planning, Sustainable Building Design, Sustainable Rural Planning, Energy Efficient Architectural Design and Large Scale LZCGT were widely welcomed. Guidance on Small Scale LZCGT, Sustainable Construction, Materials and Embodied Energy, and Fabric Energy Efficiency, were less popular choices but still had the support of over 60% of respondents.

There was generally slightly less support for Scotland-wide simple assessment procedures in relation to these categories, although support for most was still high (Figure A.13). The most popular subject matters in this respect were Fabric Energy Efficiency, Small Scale LZCGT and Sustainable Construction, Materials and Embodied Energy. However simple assessment procedures for Energy Efficient Architectural Design and Large Scale LZCGT were also considered valuable by the majority. There was seen to be less need for Scotland-wide simple assessment procedures in relation to Sustainable Urban Planning, Sustainable Rural Planning and Sustainable Building Design.

Question 28

Additional comments or concerns related to Section 3F Policy or the issues raised.

(4 Respondents)

Two respondents commented about the challenges of engaging developers in the aspirations and process of Section 3F policy. It was felt that small scale developers perhaps lacked the expertise, whilst large scale developers did not want to engage. One respondent concluded;

'As with many of the design challenges; this requires a buy-in from large scale developers, in particular house builders; and it requires policy and/or legislation to ensure that the technologies are integral to design and not add-ons to standard house types that have not changed for several years.'

(Respondent 9)

Two of the respondents raised the need for more collaborative working between planning and building standards over this issue. One of these respondents recognised the unique skillsets contained in each department and considered what role in the process each might best tackle;

'Planning can play a role in increasing awareness and facilitating discussion around LZCGT technology and carbon mitigation at an early stage in the development process. However it does not provide an easy solution to measuring and calculating GHG emission reductions as planning officers do not necessarily have the detailed skills and technical knowledge of Building Standards in order to assess this information, which is where greater collaboration between Planning and Building Standards could be beneficial.'

(Respondent 13)

The other respondent commented mainly on the difficulties of the compliance and enforcement process and concluded that in relation to Section 3F policy, the process was broken in the gap between planning and building standards. Planning has tried to enforce Section 3F planning policy through suspensive conditions but this hasn't worked very well. Whilst building standards has felt unable to help because their legal remit is only to the statutory regulations contained within the Scottish Building Standards. They concluded that planning and building standards desperately need to find a way to work together on this issue;

'We push on a daily basis for higher standards but it will all be for nothing if those requirements don't translate into better buildings on the ground at the completion stage.'

(Respondent 4)

The final respondent felt an easy way out of this complex situation would be to simply include a new mandatory standard within the Scottish Building Standards that meets the requirements of Section 3F policy. Planning could then simply reference this standard as a requirement, only one calculation would be necessary and it would be enforced by building standards. They felt the obvious solution was to upgrade the Section 7: Sustainability "Active" aspect to include a specified LZCGT contribution, and make it mandatory.

They also commented more generally on potential future UK government energy strategies. They felt there were both benefits and constraints to the national grid, of pursuing a policy of micro-generation of electricity for household needs over and above those already regulated through the SAP/SBEM process. However they felt planning could play a role by requiring a certain percentage of the average household electricity use to be provided by shared or micro-generation. They also commented positively about the Passivhaus concept and its ability to reduce energy demand for heating and cooling.