London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

effective communication with planning authorities, including comparison to standards,
and allow for conditions to be placed on demolition and construction permissions.
5.58. Brent Council was identified as a Planning Authority that had taken on the protocol and
introduced it as part of Supplementary Planning Guidance 19 – Sustainable
Construction. For developments that exceed a defined threshold, matters covered by
SPG 19 are a material consideration in the planning process. London Borough of
Enfield and the City of Westminster also have sustainable construction polices (and
London Borough of Merton is in the process of developing such a policy) but the
adoption of the Demolition Protocol’s principles within these policies is unclear. As
outlined, at least three London boroughs have adopted some or all of the ICE
Demolition Protocol in the form of relevant planning policies or Supplementary Planning
Guidance. The GLA is also producing Supplementary Planning Guidance on sustainable
design.
5.59. The London Sustainable Construction Project is developing a Code of Practice that looks
at sustainable practices throughout the whole life cycle of construction, from initial
funding of the project through to final decommissioning. The Code is aimed at all the
people involved at every stage of the construction process, for example, funders,
designers, planners, contractors, etc. The Code will suggest performance specifications
and targets for good performance and will be backed up by an implementation guide.
The Demolition Protocol will form part of this best practice. The scoping stage of the
London Sustainable Construction Project has recently been completed and funders are
being sought for the next (development) stage.
Consultations – Attitudes to Best Practice
5.60. Whilst some contractors had a feeling they were doing all they could in terms of best
practice, others felt there was a need to educate consultants and developers more about
what is available and what is possible. One consultee said that the developer often
assumes that using waste materials can be risky in terms of quality and expense. The
consultee explained how these risks were often perceived rather than real, and whole
life costs for using recycled materials, including accounting for transport on and off site,
are frequently lower than landfilling and replacing with primary materials. Another
construction consultee described the differences in attitude between the older and
younger professionals in the industry, with the latter group being more likely to have
accepted that environmental issues are important considerations.
5.61. There was a constant reference to the terminology of waste licensing and how this
affects best practice. For example, one contractor described how his company
implemented best practice on site, by reusing, recycling and stockpiling materials for
later use on site. He then discovered that these practices were at odds with waste
management legislation and, having taken into account the costs associated with waste
management licensing, combined with his ‘close shave’ with the law, he has been put
off from trying to implement such practices again. Others suggested that any
association between construction and the use of ‘waste’ materials can put off potential
purchasers. Waste legislation (particularly waste management licensing requirements)
may be hindering sustainable waste management in demolition and construction,
especially with regard to the smaller operations.
91