Philip Dunne, Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, is interviewed by Will Hurst for Architect’s Journal as the Committee publishes its report Building to net zero: costing carbon in construction.
Why has the government so far made no progress on reducing embodied carbon in construction?
The government has probably had other priorities but you’d really have to ask them … they recognise that buildings account for 25 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions so therefore, if we’re going to get to net zero Britain, something has to be done. In the manifesto on which I was elected, we pledged £9 billion worth of government support for decarbonising buildings and much of that has been allocated, including quite a lot of the Green Homes Grant scheme, which has been moved from householders to social housing.
How do you think this report will be received by government?
The government is looking for support and help in delivering net zero Britain. It remains a key ambition. So reports which focus on how we get there should be received in the spirit in which they’re offered, ie constructive criticism of what needs to be addressed to achieve this ambition.
Are you worried that this report is coming out in the middle of the latest Partygate revelations?
This report is completely independent of anything else that is going on but, whether it’s the Russian invasion of Ukraine or anything else, the government has got a lot to contend with. We [the committee] have the regular drum-beat of our work and we don’t pay a lot of attention to what is going on around us.
Given M&S commissioned a whole life carbon report by Arup which gave its Oxford Street project the green light, why do you think mandatory whole-life carbon assessments are such a key reform?
We think this will focus the attention of the building owners and developers and local authorities and will give them a proper baseline on which to assess projects. We think [M&S] is a rather interesting example where a political intervention took place in order to make a point and we found that very encouraging and therefore wanted to highlight the fact that Michael Gove had made that determination.
Whole-life carbon assessments are not a magic bullet but, like so much environmental stuff, if you don’t measure it then you don’t know what impact things might have. Measurement also might allow regulation to follow as it’s very difficult to regulate in the absence of information.
The unequal rates of VAT on new build and refurbishment are crucial in pushing developers away from refurbishment and towards demolition. Does the report underplay this?
I don’t think we are underplaying it. The report is really about trying to raise awareness of whole-life carbon … tax is just one of the instruments government can use. We’re not really a tax-driven committee but the [zero rating of energy saving materials] was something very welcome in the Budget. It’s something we called for in our previous report so we were keen to acknowledge it.
There is scope, as we say in the report, for the zero rating to be extended across other aspects of retrofitting. That would be a very significant boost to stimulate this [sector]. But, in a sense, all it’s doing is levelling up the playing field compared with new build.
The report seemed quite sceptical about permitted development rights (PDR). Do you feel PDR has any redeeming qualities?
Yes, I do actually. We had a bit of a discussion about this on the committee because some members had had experience, particularly in urban areas where it has tended to lead to demolition, whereas in rural areas we’ve tended to see permitted development encouraging re-use. So there’s a bit of an urban/rural divide there. For example, redundant agricultural buildings in my constituency [Ludlow] are being turned into houses.