SprintBio green housing - Distibutors of environmentally friendly boilers, burners and heat pumps

Ben Caldecott has writen a great piece in this week’s Guardian (http://tinyurl.com/4ej29p) highlighting the fact that daily decisions regarding the environmental impact of our lifestyles are sometimes unnecessarily complicated. Far too often making the green choice is ridiculously unaffordable, time-consuming, or perhaps even impossible.

Like most people I’m prepared to make some effort, but at the same time can only do as much as my free time and finances allow. With this in mind here is a list of 5 policy ideas the government could implement, which would make being green a whole lot easier - starting today (feel free to add your own ideas in the comments below).

1. Subsidise rail and coach travel during periods of school hoidays.

With cheap air travel contributing so much to the climate change problem it seems like a sensible place to begin. Tony Blair controversially said that it was ‘unreasonable’ to expect people to take holidays nearer to home on account of the environment. But the real issue is cost - not climate change. After all it is perfectly logical that a family of four might choose to fly to Spain or Italy for a holiday when a ticket can cost as little as £40, while a train to Cornwall or the Welsh Coast might easily cost upward of £60 per person.

By focusing only on summer holiday periods the scheme could be managable financially and would make the choice of holidaying domestically far more attractive, meaning the greener choice is also the cheaper choice. The scheme could be managed with a ‘Holiday Railcard’ (available on an individual or family basis), much like a Young Person’s Railcard, which can be purchased for a fixed sum (£20?) per year, and grants 50%-off rail fares for example.

2. Increase the subsidies available for domestically produced food.

In doing so such environmentally friendly options (home-grown fruit and veg for example obviously has far fewer food-miles attached than imported food) would be more financially viable - a key factor in consumer choice in the current climate of rising food prices. Such an initiative would have to be managed in accordance with EU rules on protectionism and trade but is easily possible. The subsidies can be granted on the condition of lower wholesale prices being offered by farmers (thereby not simply working to boost farming profits).

3. Grant local councils additional funds to implement plastic recycling.

Most UK local councils now run some sort of recycling scheme, mainly collecting glass, aluminium and paper on a weekly basis. However, due to the higher costs and more complicated processes involved in recyling plastic few councils will touch it. With some degree of investment, plastic collections could also be incorporated into such schemes making it far easier to reduce landfill site impact in countryside areas.

4. Fund free domestic insulation upgrades for pensioners.

With many older people due to be left vulnerable this winter by high heating costs the government is being called on to provide increased winter fuel credits for pensioners. Why not also fund free efficiency assessments and upgrades (if required) so that the problem is tackled on a long term basis rather than on a yearly makeshift level? It would satisfy older people knowing that the problem would not cause fresh anxiety each year, and make the choice of saving on fuel use far more possible.

5. Introduce environmental awareness information into the national curriculum.

Ok, so this one would not reap immediate benefits, but could work to improve the level of education and awareness of young people relating to such matters. It would be perfectly feasable to include a few relevant topics in secondary school science and geography syllabuses for example. In the long run a more clued up population will find it easier to support environmental initiatives, and will be better informed for the choices presented by future challenges.

Such proposals would all require varying degrees of investment, but most would yield cheaper consumer essentials for taxpayers and so could be justifiable from this basic financial level upwards. Not only a step in the right direction, they would also make decisions made at an individual level far easier and go some way towards removing the ridiculous financial and time costs often incurred by those seeking to do the right thing.

Dejan Levi

Spain has recently announced a significant move towards the use of domestic solar water heaters in a bid to improve self-sufficiency and lower rising household bills. The goal is eventually to emulate Israel’s domestic water heating situation where 90% of homes are equipped with such heating systems, meaning that hot water supply has near zero financial and environmental cost. But such countries obviously have quite an advantage over the UK in the solar energy stakes, and alternative solutions must be sought if the UK is to achieve something similar.

It is not that solar heaters are unavailable in the UK - they are - and can provide a significant portion of a household’s water heating energy needs, especially in areas of Southern England. But whichever way you look at it the numbers just can’t match those of Israel and Spain in terms of broadness and scope of viability. Solar water heating has a part to play, but so too must alternative solutions…

The two aspects of approaching the problem involve reducing the amount of water required from a mains supply, and secondly reducing the amount of energy (again from the mains supply) that is required to heat this water.

In order to tackle the initial issue there is a highly viable solution available for UK homes; rainwater harvesting. Such water can be collected either from a large surface such as a building’s roof or from a large ground area, and can be used for flushing toilets, watering gardens or even supplying the washing machine.

With average daily water use in the UK currently at 150 litres per person, rainwater harvesting has a significant part to play in reducing our dependence on mains supplies (not to mention household bills, especially considering the imminent water price increases scheduled for 2010).

The second issue, of water heating, has multiple solutions and should be assessed on an individual basis depending on particulars of location and weather of your area, but the main options involve the aforementioned solar panel systems, to biomass boilers as well as ground and air source heat pumps (more information on these technologies can be found on the ‘case study’ section of this page).

The bottom line is that such technologies will not be suited to installation in all UK homes, but also that at the same time there are many that would benefit financially (in terms of reduced household bills) by adopting such tools, especially in the current climate of rising household bills. Perhaps it is time such moves were no longer considered a shopping or home improvement choice, but rather incorporated into a government housing intiative to inform those who could benefit about what is available and how such changes can be implemented.

The collective environmental benefits would encompass helping meet housing goals of reducing the average UK household’s carbon footprint, with obvious environmental benefits for all, as well as being a more short term crisis solution with regard to the current cash squeeze and climate of rising costs.

Dejan Levi

The current Labour government is very keen on ecotowns as an ideal way of delivering a high volume of zero-carbon housing and satisfying the country’s demand for new homes. However there are some under-publicised points that rarely appear on press releases concerning the current proposals. Here are a few of them:

1. Many of the proposed ecotown sites lie partially on greenbelt land.

The Weston-on-the-Green site in Oxfordshire for example relies on such land for 12% of its total area. This means vast ancient woodlands and a nature reserve, protected for many years, would now be sacrificed to developers, as would be an even greater area of simply green (but not officially greenbelt-labelled) land. Farmland too will suffer; 2,046 acres would be lost at this site alone.

2. 12 of the 15 proposed ecotown sites are in Conservative constituencies (10 of which will be chosen for eventual development under current plans).

This is perhaps inevitable in the countryside, though it could also be argued that the measure has some degree of calculation to it - intended to minimise opposition (it has not really worked in that sense anyway, see point 9).

3. There is enough Brownfield land in the country right now to build roughly 1m new homes at medium density. In addition there are at least 600,000 empty habitable homes in England (according to Gordon Brown), plus, 9% of Commercial property currently lies empty.

In short, to build new homes in such a climate represents a lazy mismanagement of both land and resources. Granted it is more difficult to get brownfield sites converted than it is to uproot a few trees and build on already flat land - but it is also far and away the more prudent and efficient long term plan.

4. Ecotowns are supposed to be zero carbon. Except that they are in essence commuter communities which will inevitabely rely on more and more cars as their inhabitants make long journeys to work each day.

Ecotown press materials claim residents will use only public transport to commute - which must be either a shame-faced attempt at deception, or the view of a truly deluded and under-informed official. If we could instead convert existing brownfield land, most of which is in city centres, we would not only save greenbelt land - but also place workers closer to their places of work, thereby reducing car dependence.

5. After the ecotowns will come more out-of-town supermarkets and in turn more car journeys.

How else would an ecotown population (of between 5,000 and 20,000 people) get supplies? We cannot be foolish enough to think they will all be served by a local baker and butcher (the farmland has been destroyed to build the town remember). In a large ecotown we are looking at 20,000 extra car journeys per week - just for the weekly shop.

6. The architecture of the proposed ecotowns is quite frankly very uninspiring, if not plain drab.

Parkridge Holdings (involved in the Oxforshire proposals) is a fairly typical example. Visit www.parkridge.co.uk and click ‘residential’ to see for yourself.

7. In a recent excellent Guardian article Jonathan Glancey estimated that by converting current Brownfield capacity for housing the 200,000 new homes figure, which is the target of the ecotown initiative, could be not only met but exceeded.

The numbers speak for themselves - in essence we could achieve the goals of increasing housing capacity - and in a zero-carbon manner, without sacrificing any precious greenbelt or farming land. The only obstacle is cost (it is more expensive to convert land than to build on virgin land) - but surely short-term concerns such as this should not trump the long-term considerations on this issue (sustainability is sort of the point isn’t it?).

8. Ministers involved in the issue seem a little uncertain of exactly what they are doing.

Lady Andrews, Undersecretary for Housing, recently responded to a question on the matter saying ‘the five or ten ecotowns which will be built’ - suggesting somewhat of a confused reduction of scope for the plans. Similarly Caroline Flint, Minister for Housing and Development, has on occasion ignored the question of how much of the required land would be on greenbelt sites (http://tinyurl.com/5jxxqg).

9. Opposition to the plans is growing.

The Weston-on-the-Green site for example is being vehemently opposed by the Weston Front - a group led by Anthony Henman (father of tennis player Tim), while numerous other protests have also occurred in Warwickshire over the proposed Long Marston site.

10. Labour has pledged to build 3m new homes in England over the next 12 years. The current crop of ecotowns would contribute only 7% of this figure (200,000).

In terms of meeting our requirements (and Labour fulfilling their pledge), the current ecotown proposals involve sacrificing a lot, to meet only a very small fraction of our needs. We must question if this is an adequate return for what will be lost.

This is not to say that the proposals do not have any merits at all. They would of course increase housing capacity in the UK, and would increase the number of zero-carbon homes on the market (though it is hard to see how, once inhabited, these would then become zero-carbon households with the more than likely car dependence).

At the moment the only group genuinely happy with the plans are the developers set to reap large profits from the project, by being presented with the dream scenario of building on undeveloped countryside land (with no expensive clearing costs).

It is a shame that it is environmentalists who are most opposed to these ecotowns - and developers who are most keen, and also surely a clear indication that the current proposals are inadequate and misguided by quite a considerable measure.

Credit to the government for trying - but now it is time to listen to the very serious concerns of both experts and the public, and come up with another plan.

Dejan Levi

Under current UK government legislation all new-build homes must be zero-carbon after 2016. However, some of the major builders are trying to get a head-start on this deadline and have begun developing designs and prototypes already.

One such company is Barratt Developments - one of the UK’s largest firms - which this week unveiled designs for what will become the country’s first zero-carbon house built by a volume builder. The first examples of these homes will be available from 2011, in a 200 unit batch at the site of Hanham Hall hospital, near to Bristol.

All of this sounds great, except for one snag - the cost of the homes. Though Barratt have not specified the exact value, their chief executive, Mark Clare, has said that it will be ‘difficult to reduce the cost of the current prototype to commercial levels’.

Now, it’s all very well having lots of zero-carbon homes, but not so great if they all lie empty because nobody can afford to buy one… The question is; what can be done to avoid this situation from developing?

Well the simple fact is that such projects will require quite a degree of government assistance to succeed quickly. No doubt Barratt and other developers will do what they can do drive building costs down - but ultimately there is only so far this can be taken before we are left with a zero-carbon, but ugly and low quality home that nobody wants to live in.

In the first few years after 2016 (maybe even before) it will be crucial that the government subsidises the cost of such homes so that they can compete with the older properties on the market. Some measures have already been introduced, such as a stamp duty waiver until 2012 on zero-carbon homes worth over £500,000 (homes under that value are eligible for a £15,000 stamp duty discount).

This is a start - but hopefully only the beginning of a series of similar moves.

Barratt’s prototype for example utilises solar panels, rain-water harvesting, and an air source heat pump. It is these features, along with its super-insulation and triple-glazed windows, that have earned it the best possible energy use rating of grade 6 (signifying a completely zero-carbon home). Perhaps the industry sectors producing this technology could do with a few tax cuts, or incentives in return for helping reduce costs.

It is true that a zero-carbon home will face only very minimal running costs and hence a case for the higher asking price could be made on these grounds. The problem is that, if would-be buyers cannot even secure a mortgage for the house, the rest becomes irrelevant.

This is where banks have a part to play - by introducing a different mortgage option for buyers purchasing such homes they could be instrumental in the success of zero-carbon housing. With the current credit problems many banks have reigned in their mortgage options of late - but those buying a zero-carbon home in the future will have a greater ability to repay a big mortgage - due to the lack of gas and electricity bills. A bigger loan could therefore be repaid in the same time as a smaller one on a non grade 6 property.

There are many other potential measures currently being discussed - but the main point is that the government needs to seriously consider further legislation (or funding for buyer-assistance schemes) in order to ensure that the initial mandate of zero-carbon by 2016 is the success it has the potential to be. If this can be effectively managed then the (positive) consequences could be far reaching indeed - from the inherent environmental benefits, to reducing the cost (while raising the standard) of living in the UK. Let’s hope those involved can get it right, for we all stand to reap the rewards of this effort.

(A detailed image of Barratt’s design can be found here).

Dejan Levi