Protecting the environment

This content applies to England only.

Building more homes doesn’t have to harm the environment.

By building homes in the right places and to the right standards, we can meet our present housing needs and safeguard the environment for future generations at the same time.

Shelter believes that protecting the environment is also a way to help the poorest in our society. Low-income households are one of the groups most likely to suffer as a result of environmental change - for example, by living in areas at high risk of flooding. In addition, by increasing the energy efficiency of homes, we can help reduce the fuel bills of those struggling to make ends meet.

How building new homes affects the environment

The environment is affected by the construction of new homes in several different ways. For example:

• energy used in the home accounts for nearly 28% of total carbon dioxide emissions in the UK[1]  
• new homes can change the face of the existing environment, either for better or worse
• rising domestic water consumption can lead to lower river levels and permanent depletion of water tables.

In some situations, the natural environment also places limits on the number of new homes that can be built. For example, some areas are more prone to flooding than others.

For these reasons, it’s critical to take into account environmental considerations when planning new homes.

Protecting our green spaces

• A brownfield site refers to land that is or was occupied by a permanent structure, which has become vacant, underused or derelict, and has the potential for redevelopment.
• A greenfield site, by contrast, refers to land that has never previously been developed (or fully restored, former waste disposal landfill sites or mineral extraction land). This could be either within or outside built-up areas.
• A green belt is an area where development is restricted to prevent urban sprawl and protect the countryside.

Shelter supports the general principle that brownfield land should be prioritised for development. However, in practice, we believe that use of the terms ‘brownfield’ and ‘greenfield’ can be misleading. The environmental value of greenfield land can vary enormously, ranging from sites of special scientific interest to low-grade agricultural land with low levels of biodiversity. Conversely, some brownfield sites in urban areas can be green open spaces, sustaining wildlife and providing a valuable resource for local people.

We also support green belts as a means of preventing urban sprawl, but would like them to be designed in more imaginative ways, to enhance the benefits that they provide to local people. Rather than all green belts being circular bands around a town or city, we think there is scope for the use of different models, such as the use of green corridors integrating green space with the urban environment. In addition, we believe that planners should take a more positive approach to schemes that could enhance the social or environmental value of green belt land - for example, through the creation of woodland or public parks.

Although we support green belts, we believe that in certain cases, green belt land should be used to meet our pressing housing needs. Not all green belt land is of high environmental value, and some of it is actually brownfield land. Shelter is currently developing criteria that it believes should be used when weighing up applications to develop on the green belt.

Constructing homes to high environmental standards

It is vital that new homes are constructed to the highest environmental standards to minimise carbon emissions and water usage. Housebuilders, the Government and consumers all have a role to play in ensuring that this is achieved. 

So far, the Government has taken the following actions:

• it has introduced a code for sustainable homes, which measures the environmental sustainability of new homes. From 1 May 2008, developers will be required to disclose to consumers the rating of all new homes as defined by the code.
• it has set a target that by 2016 all new homes should be built to zero carbon standards, and have strengthened building regulations to ensure progress towards this goal.

Shelter has signed the 2016 commitment, committing it to work alongside the Government, housebuilders, and environmental groups to overcome the challenges to achieving zero carbon homes in this time.

Reducing the risk of flooding

Over the course of 2007, England suffered severe flooding. Indeed, the risk of flooding is increasing, due to rising sea levels, more volatile weather patterns, and the fact that South East England is slowly sinking over time. It is therefore vital that the planning system takes proper account of flooding when considering where to locate new homes. The Environment Agency has been given new powers to object to development where they believe the flood risk is unacceptable. In addition, the Government must make sufficient money available for maintaining flood defence systems and building new ones where necessary.

While efforts should be made to prevent flooding, more should also be done to ensure that new homes and communities are designed to limit the damage caused by increased flooding due to climate change. For example, houses in high risk areas can be built using flood-resistant construction techniques, such as concrete floors and fitting wiring above ground level. Another solution is the use of sustainable urban development systems, which aim to limit the risk of flash floods during heavy rain, by incorporating features that prevent or delay run-off, such as permeable surfaces, artificial wetlands and ponds.

Conserving water

Shelter supports the Government’s proposals to require new homes to be fitted with water-saving devices, such as dual-flush toilets and spray taps. In addition, we believe that more should be done to reduce the levels of leakage from the 335,000km-long water supply network. Tougher action is required from the Government and Ofwat, the water regulator, to clamp down on the companies that are failing to invest enough in upgrading the current system, parts of which are over 150 years old.

Shelter accepts that reducing household consumption is central to ensuring the sustainability of our future water usage, and that water metering may provide one way of achieving this. However, we are concerned that adequate safeguards do not yet exist to ensure that water metering does not penalise vulnerable groups, such as low-income families living in water-inefficient homes. Until such protection is put in place, we do not think compulsory water metering should be further extended.

[1] The Energy Challenge, DTI, 2006