The government demands that the local plan provides sites for about 750 houses per year over the next 20 years in Teignbridge.

Where homes are built makes a difference to carbon emissions.

If you build small flats in town centres:

• There are fewer emissions from construction.
• There are fewer ongoing emissions.
• You don’t need a car, so there is a chance of no private transport emissions.

This post considers how far this could be achieved in the Heart of Teignbridge using the sites already identified in part 2 of the local plan. It is quite a long post which includes some feasibility calculations, which considers:

• Overall allocation of sites in the plan
• Allocation in the Heart of Teignbridge
• Housing need
• Housing density
• What does 70 dwellings per hectare look like
• What should the housing mix be
• What would the carbon emissions of this development be
• Comparison with development of more out of town sites

Overall allocation of sites in the plan

Part 2 of the local plan identifies more new sites than are needed to meet this when sites already allocated in the existing plan are taken into account.

The plan proposes that the allocations are split between the areas identified as follows:

• Heart of Teignbridge: 40% (c. 2,920 homes)
• Edge of Exeter: 24% (c. 1,800 homes)
• Dawlish: 14% (c. 1000 homes)
• Teignmouth: 1% (c. 100 homes)
• Bovey Tracey: 3.5% (c. 250 homes)
• Ashburton: 3.5% (c. 250 homes)
• Villages: 14% (c. 960 homes)

Each site has a suggested minimum and maximum number of homes, the following table is derived from these, and shows the level of choice in each area:

The columns in this table are sourced from the local plan documents as follows:

• Proposed distribution comes from ‘How much housing development is required’ in chapter 2.
• Min is the sum of the lower number of homes for each site in the area, taken from chapters 3 to 10.
• Max is the sum of the higher number of homes for each site in the area, taken from chapters 3 to 10
• Min <= 1ha is the sum of the lower number of homes for each site in the area, where the site is less than 1 hectare (and so suitable for a smaller developer).
• Max <= 1ha is the sum of the higher number of homes for each site in the area, where the site is less than 1 hectare (and so suitable for a smaller developer).
• %required min is the proportion of Min that would be required to satisfy the proposed distribution.
• %required max is the proportion of Max that would be required to satisfy the proposed distribution. This indicates the level of choice between sites given in the plan.
• Notes are any observations.

For the sake of argument let’s accept this distribution. It shows that there is a considerable amount of choice of sites in the Heart of Teignbridge, Dawlish, Bovey Tracey and the villages.

The rest of this post considers a possible allocation for the Heart of Teignbridge.

Allocation in the Heart of Teignbridge

Within the Heart of Teignbridge the sites are subdivided into Urban Renewal sites, which are on existing land that has already been developed for other purposes, and the rest of the Heart of Teignbridge.

Enough of the sites in the Heart of Teignbridge to meet the allocation of 2920 are shown in the following table:

Some of the sites towards the bottom of the table have been chosen to make up the numbers, but this allocation tries to avoid using green field sites that are away from current development.

This post considers putting the maximum possible amount of development into the Urban Renewal sites, this has a number of advantages:

• The homes delivered will all be within easy walking distance of:
  • Newton Abbot Station
  • Bus services
  • Newton Abbot town centre
  • The combined cycleway/footpath towards Bovey Tracey and Moretonhampstead to the north, and currently to the Passage House, soon to be extended to Teignmouth.
  • Hackney marshes
• The need for car ownership for day to day use would be minimised:
  • occasional car use could be provided by a car club.
  • Day to day car use would only be needed if work demanded it.
  • The need for further car parking would be minimised.
  • Car traffic growth would be minimised.
• These sites suit smaller dwellings and these is a proven demand for smaller dwellings.
• The combination of smaller dwellings and possibilities for active travel and use of public transport will give the smallest carbon footprint.
• Development of green field sites further out away from the centre is minimised.

We then consider other sites as near to the Town Centre as possible. The A382 development is already in progress, and there is relatively level access to the town centre along this corridor. This favours the Berry Knowles, Caravan Storage and Forches Cross sites. Unfortunately we still need to find 424 homes from the remaining sites.

Housing Need

The latest TDC housing policy document states that there is a waiting list of about 1000 applicants, and that 51% of these applicants are looking for a single bed property the proportion of property types required by applicants is shown in the following table:

Additionally 1 in 3 Teignbridge residents is over 65 years old, so probably doesn’t have children.

This says that there is a need to smaller properties, which could be flats.

There is clearly a need for social and affordable housing, as the waiting list recently has been about 1000 applicants, with about 350 applicants being housed each year. If the waiting list were to be substantially reduced over say 4 years to 100, then an additional 225 affordable homes per year would be required.

On average 137 new affordable homes are provided, other applicants are housed from existing stock. So the number of new affordable homes needs to increase to about 425. That would leave 325 open market homes from the obligatory 750 allocation.

Housing Density

Housing density is expressed in dwellings per hectare (dph), the area part of this measure includes estate roads, but excludes major thoroughfares.

The Teignbridge Urban design guide gives suggested densities for different situations:

From the developable area and maximum homes stated for Urban Renewal areas we can calculate the maximum dwellings per hectare:

Kingsteignton retail park site has a maximum density of 37.04, which is low for an urban area. This is a large site, so makes a big difference to the overall numbers, developing this at 50dph delivers an additional 175 homes.

If all the sites were developed at a density of 70 dph, then only 522 more homes would be required, so only the Berry Knowles and Forches Cross sites would be needed in addition to the Urban Renewal sites. Some sites are already allocated at more than 70 dph, so setting this as a minimum gives 2466 homes, so we are left with 454 to find.

If a minimum of 84.5 dph was set over this area, then 2932 homes would be delivered, which is enough to satisfy the Heart of Teignbridge allocation.

When I originally wrote this section I has misread the developable area of Brunel as 22 hectares, which makes the calculations better. If the developable are of Brunel or Kingsteignton retail park could be increased by 7ha between both sites, then the average density required overall could be reduced to 70dph.

What does 70 dwellings per hectare look like?

The following pictures are from the TDC Urban Design Guide:

So the Teignmouth block to the top left is at 70 dph. These examples are in the Teignbridge Vernacular. For a larger development such as Brunel, a complementary, but more modern style might be appropriate.

Consider the following example from the paper on housing density from Havant council:

I am sure that an imaginative architect could manage better!

So it looks like 70 dph is achievable if most dwellings are small and development is up to 3 storeys.

What should the housing mix be?

In order to substantially reduce the housing waiting list we need to deliver about 425 affordable homes per year. The mix for these should follow the mix of dwelling sizes required by applicants. If the urban renewal area were developed using this mix then the numbers would be as follows:

Here we have split 2 and 3 bed dwellings equally between flats and houses.

What would be the carbon footprint of this development be?

The carbon footprint that can be attributed to this development is made up from:

• Embedded emissions from construction of dwellings.
• Operational emissions from buildings in use.
• Transport emissions

For buildings emissions can be approximately calculated from floor area, we assume that development is to the minimum space standard introduced in 2015. This standard takes into account the number of occupants as well as the number of bedrooms, so a one bedroom flat may have one or two occupants. Apply the minimum floor areas in this standard to our required annual housing numbers:

Embedded emissions from construction depend on the construction type, the following values are assumed, and are applied to a floor area of 45969 m²:

CLT stands for cross laminated timber, which is a lightweight construction that can be used for up to 9 storeys. It lends itself to offsite pre-fabrication. CLT panels have good thermal properties.

The above embedded emissions do not take account of sequestration caused by the carbon sequestered whilst trees are growing being locked up in the structure of a dwelling. If this is taken into account it could be that CLT construction is carbon negative.

The operational emissions can be approximated from past energy performance certificates, combined with an aspiration that the new building regulations will reduce operational emissions to 25% of current building regulations. The average current CO₂ emissions from properties with an EPC rating C and above since 2015 is about 24kg CO₂e/m²/year. So we assume that these dwellings will be built to 6kg CO₂e/m²/year. This gives operational emissions of 276 tCO₂e per year.

As no car travel is necessary with these sites, there are no additional transport emissions.

If the urban renewal sites are built at 750 dwellings per year, it will take nearly 4 years to construct these dwellings. If we allocate embedded emissions to the year of construction, then the total emissions over the first few years would be:

Comparison with development of more out of town sites

Suppose that instead we built 750 brick built 3/4 bedroomed homes on sites 3 miles from the town centre.

Assume these have an average floor area of 100m², then the embedded emissions would be 73.1 tonnes per house, or 54,825 tonnes for 750 houses.

The operational emissions would be 450 tonnes per year.

We assume that a resident 3 miles from the town centre travels everywhere by car including travel to work, shopping and leisure. This might amount to 8,000 miles per year. Worse sites 3 miles from the town centre are generally at a higher altitude, so will require additional energy to go uphill that is not regained downhill. 8,000 miles in an average petrol or diesel car emits 2.5 tCO₂e/year, and a diesel 2.2 tCO₂e/year. Even an EV powered from grid electricity would emit 0.8tCO₂e/year. If we assume 20% EV, 40% diesel and 40% petrol, then the average car would emit about 2t CO₂e/year.

Even if we assume 1 car per house, then there are an additional 1500 tonnes from cars. It would be more realistic to assume 2 cars with one being used less, so effectively 1.5 cars.

Putting all this together for the first few years we get:

Once built this option has nearly 10 times the emissions than the alternative low carbon option.

Wood burning stoves are in the news. They make a significant contribution to air pollution according to a recent government report. Wood burners and open fires together account for more than one-third (38%) of the tiny particles known as PM2.5 that are among the most damaging types of emissions for human health. That is more than any other source. Road traffic, by contrast, accounts for only 12%.

I’m not sure what to make of this. I like to fire up our stove on cold days, to supplement the oil-fired central heating, and we are thinking of adding a second stove elsewhere in the house to reduce our reliance on oil. Surely it is better to burn wood than fossil fuels? 

Well it’s not that simple. Wood is a renewable energy source as burning it is carbon neutral and doesn’t increase carbon dioxide emissions. But those PM2.5 emissions are a problem, both inside and outside the home. Open fires are worse than burners on that front, but many burners with doors are poor too. A recent study by the University of Sheffield showed that people who open the door to load a stove twice or more in an evening are exposed to pollution spikes two to four times higher than those who refuel once or not at all.

The problem is compounded by burning the wrong type of wood. Emissions from wood treated with chemicals or containing glue are seriously carcinogenic. Wet wood is also more polluting because it produces more smoke. A ban on sales of wet wood for households came into force in England in February.

Biomass boilers tend to be less of a problem than wood burning stoves, especially those that burn wood pellets. They are also more an informed choice than a nice-to-have accessory as you can’t sit around them enjoying the comforting warmth and glow.

I’m happy to take the indoor pollution risk of using a wood burner. But what about the particulates escaping up the chimney? Is air quality in Newton Abbot affected by that? Judging by a pollution map based on the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, the answer is yes. Domestic wood burning is the biggest source of air pollution due to PM2.5 in all the local towns.

This surprising fact has to be seen in the context of the huge reduction in air pollution over the past 50 years and the way the government measures it. Annual emissions of PM2.5 have fallen by 80% since 1970, mainly due to the falling use of coal and higher emission standards for transport and industry. The decline has levelled off in recent years though, as decreases in emissions from some sectors are largely offset by increases in emissions from domestic wood burning and use of biofuels by industry.

Wood burning stoves have become fashionable in recent years. They have also become more efficient and less polluting (in terms of outdoor pollution at least). The government’s report assumes stoves in use are mostly of the old polluting type, and that they are being used for 40 hours a week in winter and 20 hours a week in summer. This is based on a 2015 survey that also forms the basis of the NAEI. The government admits its estimates could be wrong by a factor of 10, so wood burning stoves could be making a much smaller (or larger) contribution to air pollution than the 38% attributed.

Whatever the numbers, Gary Fuller, an air pollution scientist at Imperial College and author of ‘The Invisible Killer – the rising global threat of air pollution and how we fight back’, is clear that burning wood, especially as a fashion statement, is not acceptable. In an interview with Environmental Protection Scotland he said even stoves that meet the eco-design standards that will apply from 2022 “emit the same amount of particles as the emissions from six heavy goods vehicles”.

That doesn’t sound like a neighbourly thing to do, even in my semi-rural village. In a city, it is definitely hard to justify when we know that air pollution is a killer. So my search for a clean alternative to burning oil to heat my house is leading in the direction of a heat pump, although that will be more expensive to install and run than another wood burning stove. If I was a more cynical person, I would suspect this demonisation of wood burning stoves to be a campaign aimed at prolonging our reliance on fossil fuels. That’s just mad though, isn’t it?

I was brought up to turn the lights off when I left a room, to save both money and energy. I remember the three day week of the 1970s and the power cuts when energy was rationed. That early training may help me now as I start the work of making my home more energy efficient.

I knew when I bought my home three years ago that I would need to do this eventually as it came with an energy performance certificate rating of E, which is pretty bad. Then recently, I checked out some of the carbon footprint calculators you can find online. This was partly for my own interest and partly because my parish council has declared a climate emergency, and as a councillor, I thought I should look at my own carbon emissions. Well, that didn’t go well!

I don’t fly much and aim to keep it that way, so I score points there, and although I drive an old diesel car, I don’t drive it very far. (The electric bike we bought this year is doing increasing mileage!) The main problem is household consumption of electricity and heating oil, which accounts for nearly 40% of my total footprint. It makes my energy bills high too.

The first step in trying to reduce that is to find out which household appliances are the greediest in energy terms. I have borrowed a couple of meters to help with this and am gradually working through the house. Most of my appliances are quite old, so it may be worth replacing some. Even though a new fridge freezer, for example, comes with embedded emissions from the manufacturing process, it’s greater energy efficiency (and lower running costs) may make it a worthwhile purchase.

Next is an assessment of where the house leaks heat, which will hopefully help me decide what I can do to improve this. More or better insulation may be called for, or perhaps I can start thinking about whether to install a heat pump and retire my oil-fired boiler. I might be able to apply for the government’s Green Homes Grant to help with costs, or the Renewable Heat Incentive. 

It’s a steep learning curve and I will need help along the way to make sensible decisions. It has opened my eyes, though, to the importance of economising on energy wherever possible. It might help my bank balance too. A win win in fact!

The government is conducting a consultation entitled “Changes to The Current Planning System”, which include proposed changes to the formula for calculation of housing numbers.

When applied to 2020 this formula requires 1532 houses a year, whereas the previous formula required 760 houses.

Summary of our concerns

• The absence of parallel policies to limit the significant increase in GHG emissions goes against the UK’s Paris commitments on Climate Change
• Extrapolating historic growth to predict future demand is unsustainable, unrealistic and unnecessary
• Undue weight is given to workplace affordability now and 10 years ago
• The Workplace Affordability Criteria proposed is likely to build houses in the wrong places and increase commuter miles
• Workplace affordability does not take into account the major projected growth which is in pensioner households.
• The assumption that house prices are simply determined by supply/demand is misguided
• Imposing significant government targets to the housing market without safeguards or limits is likely to exacerbate boom/bust cycles
• A rushed consultation for a policy change with significant impact on some local communities

What is the formula

The formula is calculated from:

• The ONS projection of household numbers for the next 10 years
• Workplace affordability now and 10 years ago.

An annual baseline is set by dividing the growth in household numbers over 10 years by 10.

This baseline is multiplied by an adjustment derived from workplace affordability and the difference between workplace affordability now and 10 years earlier.

The formula is designed to add at least 300,000 new houses per year in England.

Full details of the formula and a worked example are given in our detailed paper.

Growth in household numbers

ONS project a 7,920 growth in Teignbridge household numbers between 2020 and 2030. The chart on the right shows that the majority of these will be pensioners. Of those who are of working age it is likely that a significant proportion will be commuters.

Growth of 7920 over 10 years gives an annual baseline of 792 houses.

Workplace affordability

Workplace affordability is median house prices divided by median workplace earnings. So is a measure of the relationship of house prices in Teignbridge to pay in Teignbridge. The following chart shows the workplace affordability now and 10 years ago over the last few years:

Both now and 10 years ago affordability has been falling, which means that houses are becoming more affordable. 10 years ago we were recovering from a financial crisis and in 2010 after the general election the housing market stalled, causing a low in house prices and so affordability.

The government’s stated purpose in to have a formula which is reactive to deterioration in affordability in areas that are growing, such as areas of the Northern Powerhouse. Comparison with 10 years ago in this case fails because slight changes now are dwarfed by big changes 10 years ago.

The adjustments calculated using affordability over the last few years are shown below:

The adjustment varies considerably from year to year and does not have to have a relationship to recent changes in availability.

As many worker commute out of the district and the majority of household growth is in the older non-working population, we don’t think that workplace affordability is an appropriate measure.

Age based affordability

We have calculated affordability for pensioners aged under 75, and those aged 75 and over, based on median gross incomes for England. Currently pensioner incomes in the South West are higher that nationally:

This suggests that affordability for older pensioners is about the same as for the working population, but affordability is substantially lower for younger pensioners. This only considers earnings, it does not consider the larger capital resources that pensioners can have in housing, pensions and other investments.

Residential Affordability

Residential earnings are the earnings of residents of a district.

Residential affordability is median house price divided by median residential earnings.

ONS also publish median residential earnings for each financial year, so we can compare median residential and workplace earnings.

Residential earnings for Teignbridge are consistently higher that workplace earnings.

Comparison with Exeter

We have also considered the relationship of residential and workplace earnings in Exeter, and see an opposite relationship:

Here residential earnings are lower than workplace earnings, though recently the two have converged.

The effect of using residential earnings, rather than workplace earnings would be to make affordability lower in Teignbridge, and in earlier years higher in Exeter. This would result in more houses in Exeter and fewer in Teignbridge.

This would mean that more people who worked in Exeter lived in Exeter, so there would be less commuting, which would be likely to be by car.

What has this to do with climate change?

When a traditionally built house is constructed there are about 60tonnes of Carbon Dioxide equivalent (t CO₂e) of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. Building 1532 additional houses would cause embedded emissions of 93kT CO₂e which is about half Teignbridge’s domestic emissions of 182kT CO₂e (for 2018). On this basis the previous formula’s 760 houses would have emitted 46kT CO₂e.

We have also demonstrated that using residential earnings would lead to more homes being built in areas with high earnings, which would lead to less commuting.

In 2018 road transport emissions for Teignbridge were 402 ktCO₂e of which 329.8 ktCO₂e were on A roads and motorways. These roads account for 45% of all emissions produced in Teignbridge.

The following map shows these emissions allocated according to traffic flows in the road network in Teignbridge.

An interactive version of this map can be found here.

Are 300,000 houses per year needed

ONS project that between 2020 and 2030 1.6 million households will be formed in England, nowhere near 3 million.

The consultation says: “The Government has based the proposed new approach on a number of principles for reform. These include ensuring that the new standard method delivers a number nationally that is consistent with the commitment to plan for the delivery of 300,000 new homes a year, a focus on achieving a more appropriate distribution of homes, and on targeting more homes into areas where they are least affordable.” 

So the new standard method for calculating housing numbers takes into account existing housing stock, as well as projected household growth. It also puts more emphasis on affordability by taking into account changes over time, and it inflates the final number by removing the 40% cap that currently applies.

Building 300,000 houses a year, rather than 160,000 means that 140,000 extra houses will be built. Using 60t per house, embedded emissions from these additional houses will be 8.4Mt , UK GHG emissions in 2019 were 351.5Mt, so this is unnecessary housebuilding could add 2.4% to UK emissions each year.

It would be better to reduce new housing numbers, and divert building trades resources to retro-fitting existing buildings so that these are as energy efficient as possible.

Research by the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence provides an alternative, and in our view more plausible explanation of the causes. Housing evidence has calculated that there were 1.12million surplus houses by March 2018, and that taking this into account net additions to housing stock exceed household formations.

In Teignbridge, since compatible records began in 2001, 497 houses have been completed than households formed. In addition there have been changes of use, conversions and retrofits that have effectively increased the housing stock, that are not counted in new build housing numbers.

In Teignbridge it is doubtful that building more houses will have much effect on affordability, because the majority of new housing that is built is out of reach for people on Teignbridge median earnings, and will mainly be bought by people whose income comes from outside the district. If house prices were to drop such that development was unprofitable, developers would just stop building and wait for the situation to correct.

We agree that tackling some of the other causes would be more effective:

• Privatisation of council housing
• Relaxation of restrictions on buy to let mortgages
• Low median incomes
• The lack of income progression recently in early careers.
• Difficulty of accessing mortgage finance.
• Competition with buy-to-let landlords.
• Speculative purchase of housing as an investment asset, particularly by foreign buyers.

Unfortunately the government is intent on building 300,000 houses a year, so the consultation doesn’t offer much opportunity to comment on that.

Timetable for Teignbridge Local Plan

The consultation gives a tight timetable for submission of part 2 plans in order to be exempt from these requirements.

The current timetable for the Teignbridge local plan can be found here https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/planning/local-plans-and-policy/local-development-scheme/

This starts development of part 2 of the plan in January 2021, and consults on sites in the period leading to September 2021. This plan is then submitted for inspection in April 2023. If the new formula is adopted by the end of 2020, then in order to be exempt from the new requirements, the council will have until September 2021 to submit a plan to the inspector. This sounds like an extremely challenging contraction of the planning process.

It is therefore likely that TDC will be obliged to comply with this formula, and so will need to identify additional sites, which will extend the plan timetable further.

Detailed Analysis

Our in depth analysis can be found here

Responding to the consultation

You can respond online to the consultation here.

The deadline for responses is 11:45pm on 1st October 2020.

Our response to the housing numbers part of the consultation is available here , and has been submitted online.