In the post

Julian, Becka, and I had lunch in town today, as we do so often. We treated ourselves to very nice smoothies afterwards. Smoothie Revolution, a tiny shop on Hardman Street, equipped with a few chiller cabinets and an array of electrical blenders, a take-away just for fruit juices or smoothies, freshly made. Then I cycled home to do some work, and found a letter from the council, individually written to me. It's the answer to a letter I had written some time ago where I outlined my objections and concerns about the proposed demolition, and especially on the consultation process. I thought that the interviews with residents the council had comissioned could never give a true picture about what people here think about the plans. My letter, I requested, should become part of the report councillors are given before they make the decision on Lovell's plans. This request is granted I am informed. I have to go through the points the South Central Neighbourhood Management Team Leader(Interim)(And people think we Germans have long words. How about this on a name's badge?) gives as answers to my letter. By skim reading I have the impression that it picks up some points I made, but does not really answer them. Take point 8 for example:

Lovell's newbuild construction will be required to meet Building Regulations standards of energy efficiency. Due to Government policy these standards have risen sgnificantly in recent years.

Thats the answer to something quoted from my letter:

Not only in the light of recent studies into climate change housing development has to be sustainable: Plans for new houses have to make best use of resources and incorporate measures for energy conservation. The current standards are not sufficient. The building industry simply can't carry on as it has done for decades. Lovell's plans do not reflect any of these requirements: Suggested houses are of conventional build, no measures are proposed to be especially energy saving. Demolition plans have to take into account the amount of build in energy in the existing houses, which would be lost. Imagination from Lovell does not reach far enough to improve the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock, even where they are promising to keep and refurbish houses.

My point is that you have to go beyond current building standards if you are serious about tackling climate change. I might be digging a hole here for myself: the enery efficiency of these terraces with their solid walls, single pane sash windows, probably insufficient loft insulation can hardly compete with a low carbon house. There's an interesting article in Green Futures of March/April 2006 about the apparent conflict between heritage and environment.

"Can't stop our ageing homes from wasting heat? Then replace them as fast as possible, and move Britain on to a lower carbon path. In a nutshell, that's the case for demolition. But it smacks of barbarism to the conservationists, who are even loath to let a major energy makeover spoil our housing heritage. We ask rival protagonists to set out their stalls - and look for common ground."

Certainly Lovell does not fall into any of these categories: They are not conservationists, they want to demolish these houses. Even houses they claim to keep their version of conservation only amounts to keeping the facades, the house behind still has to go. (I hate this kind of pseudo conservation. A house is not just it's face to the street!). Lovell is also not interested in the environmental issues of their new houses: Before an Open Day event this summer where Lovell showed us their maps I had tried to find anything in Lovell's portfolio that would give them environmental credentials. I found very little. Asking about it I was told that "if the client pays for it, we do it. But here the client doesn't want to pay for it." Rubbish.