黑洞社区

Communities secretary Eric Pickles has been threatened with a judicial review of his decision to scrap the so-called 鈥渃onservatory tax鈥� unless he reinstates the policy.

The Association for the Conservation of Energy (ACE) said it had taken legal advice that Pickles鈥� reasoning in his decision to scrap the proposed changes to Part L of the building regulations, known as consequential improvements, may have been flawed.

ACE said it would apply for a judicial review after 11 February unless the government reversed the decision.

Pickles announced last December that the government would not be implementing the Part L proposals, which would have required homeowners to improve the energy efficiency of their property through the Green Deal when carrying out other home improvements.

The proposals had been consulted on at the beginning of 2012, but caused a media storm with some newspapers dubbing them a 鈥渃onservatory tax鈥�, despite the measures not applying to the vast majority of conservatories.

Number 10 subsequently moved to block the proposals, before Pickles announced the plan had been scrapped.

Implementing the proposed changes to Part L is a key part of 黑洞社区鈥檚 Green for Growth campaign. As 黑洞社区 reported in September, officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) have estimated the change would have generated an extra 2.2m Green Deals.

Andrew Warren, director of ACE, said Pickles鈥� decision was 鈥渁ppalling governance鈥� and 鈥渢oo perverse to remain unchallenged鈥�. 鈥淭here is no explanation whatsoever for Mr. Pickles鈥� change of heart. Apart from his formal statement on 13 December, we cannot tell why he has decided to reject a scheme, which, less than a year earlier, he was recommending so strongly,鈥� he said.

鈥淓ven though he had demonstrated it to be good for the economy. Good for the environment. Good for the Green Deal. Essentially, good governance.鈥�

ACE also said Pickles had chosen to ignore the results of the government鈥檚 consultation on the proposals, which showed 82% of people were in favour of the policy

Instead, DCLG refered to two reports by the Energy Savings Trust and consultant Aecom, which it said 鈥渋ndicated that over a third of households would be put off from doing home improvements if they had to undertake consequential improvements as well鈥�.

But ACE said this 鈥渄istort[ed] the research evidence, and in both cases misrepresent[s] the conclusions reached鈥�.