Miliband: I'll stop noise rules blocking heat pumps
The Energy Secretary has promised to investigate how regulations are enforced and to relax the rules if needed, saying noise issues 'remains a big barrier' to heat pump installations.
Mr Miliband said: 'We're going to look at that, as to whether this is about the rules and the way they are being enforced and the knowledge of the rules.
'Often what I find on some of these planning issues, sometimes it's the rules, sometimes it's the enforcement of the rules and sometimes it's the awareness of the rules – and you've got to work out which it is.
'My overall approach would be to say where there are barriers, let's get rid of them if we possibly can. If the noise thing is a barrier, obviously subject to making sure there isn't a disturbance to people, which I don't think there will be, we should act on that.'
Mr Miliband was addressing Bill Esterson, chair of the energy security and net zero committee, who said one in three heat pump installations required planning consent even in cases where the machines were producing noise comparable to a computer.
The Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS), which sets planning standards for the devices, states that the noise from a heat pump cannot exceed 37 decibels (dB) when measured a metre away. 40dB is roughly equivalent to a quiet office or a library.
Rollout struggles
The Energy Secretary is pushing for Britain to install 600,000 heat pumps per year by 2028 as part of his net zero drive.
Labour has already scrapped a rule requiring homeowners in England to gain planning consent to install heat pumps at least one metre away from a neighbouring property.
The one-metre requirement had originally been introduced because some systems can emit a humming sound of up to 60dB, similar to the level produced by a fridge or dishwasher.
Mr Miliband said that removing that rule had already 'made a difference' in terms of more widespread adoption of the technology.
In an awkward situation for the Energy Secretary, his own neighbours are protesting against a five-storey residential development over concerns that its six proposed heat pumps will cause noise pollution.
Justine Thornton, Mr Miliband's wife, is among those objecting to the development in their Dartmouth Park neighbourhood, calling them 'too tall, too bulky and too dense', although she did not mention anything in relation to the heat pumps.
Campaigners warned that any relaxation of existing guidance could worsen noise pollution. Andrew Montford, of campaign group Net Zero Watch, said loosening restrictions around noise would 'undoubtedly lead to conflict between neighbours'.
He said: 'When heat pumps are new, they tend to be relatively quiet, but as they age they can become very noisy.'
John Stewart, chairman of the UK Noise Association, warned that any further easing of guidelines would 'remove the little protection residents have from heat pump noise'.
He added: 'It will particularly impact lower-income people living in flats or terraced houses where inevitably heat pumps will be very close to their homes.
'Miliband would be much better insisting on high-quality heat pumps rather than loosening restrictions on them.'
A government spokesman said: 'We have seen incredible innovation in heat pump design over the past decade, with technological advances meaning they have become quieter over time and noise complaints are rare.
'We have announced changes to remove planning constraints to make them easier to install and will review their impact to explore how we can further streamline the planning requirements to support heat pump take-up.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
20 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU's pledge for $250 billion of US energy imports is delusional
LAUNCESTON, Australia, July 28 (Reuters) - There are strong echoes of Donald Trump's failed trade deal with China from his first term as U.S. president in the framework agreement reached with the European Union. Trump and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the deal for a 15% tariff on U.S. imports of EU goods at the U.S. leader's golf course in Scotland on Sunday. But more important than the 15% tariff rate was the apparent commitment by the EU to massively ramp up energy imports from the United States. The agreement calls for EU imports of U.S. energy, which currently are mainly crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), of $250 billion a year for three years. This is a delusional level of imports that the EU has virtually no chance of meeting, and one that U.S. producers would also struggle to supply. Even if the EU did manage somehow to boost its energy imports from the United States to the $250 billion a year mark, it would also prove massively disruptive for energy flows around the rest of the world. The numbers show the scale of the challenge. The 28 members of the EU imported 3.38 billion barrels of seaborne crude oil in 2024, according to data compiled by energy analysts Kpler. Assuming the 2025 volume stays the same and the price paid per barrel averages around $70, this means the EU will pay about $236.6 billion for its crude. The EU's imports from the United States were 573 million barrels in 2024, which if replicated this year would be valued at around $40.1 billion. For LNG, the EU imported 82.68 million metric tons in 2024, which would have cost around $51.26 billion assuming an average price of around $12 per million British thermal units (mmBtu). Imports of the super-chilled fuel from the United States were 35.13 million tons in 2024, worth about $21.78 billion. The EU also buys coal from the United States, the bulk being higher-value metallurgical coal used to make steel. Total EU imports of metallurgical coal in 2024 were worth $6.72 billion, assuming an average price of $200 per ton, with those from the United States valued at $2.67 billion. Putting together the value of EU imports of U.S. crude oil, LNG and metallurgical coal gives a 2024 total of around $64.55 billion. This is about 26% of the $250 billion the EU is supposed to spend on U.S. energy a year under the framework agreement. If the EU did ramp up its imports of U.S. crude, LNG and metallurgical coal to $250 billion, it would account for 85% of its total spending on those energy commodities. The United States exported 1.45 billion barrels of crude in 2024, according to Kpler, which would be worth $101.5 billion at a price of $70 a barrel. U.S. shipments of LNG were 87.05 million tons in 2024, which would be worth about $54 billion at an average price of $12 per mmBtu. The U.S. exported 51.53 million tons of metallurgical coal in 2024, worth $10.3 billion at an average price of $200 a ton. Putting together the value of all three energy commodities gives a total of $165.8 billion, meaning that even if the EU bought the entire volume it would still fall well short of the $250 billion. The scale of the delusion probably exceeds what Trump and China agreed in their so-called Phase 1 trade deal in December 2019, under which China was supposed to buy $200 billion of additional U.S. energy by the end of 2021. The reality is that China never even came close to buying that level, and its imports of U.S. energy didn't even reach what they were before Trump launched his first trade war in 2017. There are a few caveats when looking at the framework agreement between Trump and Von der Leyen. The first is that not all the details are known and the $250 billion of energy is also said to include nuclear fuel, although this will only be a small value even if included. The second is the deal will probably include refined fuels, with U.S. exports to the EU of products such as diesel, being almost 110 million barrels in 2024, worth about $10.9 billion assuming a price of $100 a barrel. But it's still clear that the commitment to buy $250 billion in U.S. energy is completely unrealistic and unachievable. The smart people in the room must know this, begging the question as to why agree to what is obviously a ridiculous number? What happens when the inevitable failure is realised? Perhaps the EU is hoping for the same outcome as China did with the first trade war with Trump in 2019. Run down the clock, talk nice, and hope the next U.S. president is easier to deal with. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab. The views expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Starmer faces difficult task persuading Trump to take different path on Gaza
Moments after Air Force One touched down at Prestwick on Friday for a trip in which politics will take as big a billing as golf, Donald Trump was asked about his relationship with Keir Starmer. 'I like your prime minister. He's slightly more liberal than I am, as you've probably heard. But he's a good man,' the US president told reporters. At a time when the UK wants Trump's ear on numerous weighty issues, his response to questions about the 'special relationship' will have given Downing Street some reassurance. But it has been hard won. Starmer has been clear since before Trump's re-election that he would work with him if it was in Britain's national interest. There have been uncomfortable moments, but so far his decision to align himself with the US president has broadly paid off. Most notable was the economic deal agreed by the two leaders that slashes some of Trump's tariffs on cars, aluminium and steel, and which – even though it is not yet fully implemented – the UK government hopes will be a first step towards a closer trading relationship. Starmer, along with other western allies, has also helped encourage Trump to shift his position on Ukraine. After initially siding with Vladimir Putin and appearing to blame Volodymyr Zelenskyy for the invasion, the US president has since declared himself 'very unhappy' with his Russian counterpart. The prime minister now faces his toughest diplomatic task of all: trying to persuade Trump to take a different path on the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East. Even getting the issue on the agenda will not have been straightforward, with the White House not regarding Gaza as a priority. Trump is the only international leader whom the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, listens to – though even then, not all of the time – so getting the US president's ear at this precise moment is an opportunity not to be squandered. With international fury over the situation on the ground in Gaza growing, Starmer has also been under pressure domestically – from his cabinet, Labour MPs and increasingly the public – to take further action against Israel. Government advisers are defensive – citing what the UK has already done to hold Israel to account since Labour came to power – and promising further action will follow, even if it is not clear what that might constitute. They point to the UK restoring funding to the UN agency Unrwa, sanctioning far-right Israeli ministers and those who committed settler violence, breaking off trade negotiations with Israel, backing the legitimacy of the international criminal court and restricting arms licences to Israel (though not preventing them entirely). Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The initial urgency is around humanitarian aid, with mass starvation spreading across Gaza, and Starmer will be hoping to persuade Trump that the situation on the ground will only worsen unless the Israelis fully lift their blockade of almost all aid into the territory. The longer-term prize, however, would be a ceasefire. Starmer will press Trump to revive ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas, after the US and Israel withdrew their negotiation teams from Qatar last week. Getting them back round the table to agree a 60-day break from fighting is a prerequisite to a more permanent cessation of violence. The window of opportunity is narrow: the Israeli parliament is not sitting until October, which gives Netanyahu the cover he would need to agree a deal. But Starmer knows Trump is the only international figure who can put pressure on him to do so. Only at that point does Starmer feel the UK could follow France and formally recognise a Palestine state. No 10 insiders say it is a 'matter of when, not if' and David Lammy, the foreign secretary, will be at a UN conference this week to establish a pathway to formal recognition. To the deep frustration of many in his party, the prime minister last week rejected a call to follow France in recognising Palestine amid concerns the move would be largely symbolic without a ceasefire in place, and that issue could overshadow the talks with Trump. But that means even more is riding on Monday's meeting with the US president. It will be a test of whether the energy put into maintaining a good relationship with Trump has been worth it. And it will also show how far Starmer really is prepared to push to help bring an end to the catastrophe in Gaza.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Zero-hours contracts: peers accused of ‘trying to block stronger UK workers' rights'
Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers have been accused of trying to block stronger rights for millions of workers amid a growing campaign by business leaders to water down Labour's zero-hours contract plans. In a blow for the government, the Lords last week voted to curtail the manifesto promise to give workers a right to a guaranteed hours contract and day-one protections against unfair dismissal. Setting up a showdown with the upper chamber, the Lords passed a series of amendments to the employment rights bill that will must be addressed by ministers when MPs return from their summer break. In an angry intervention on Monday, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, Paul Nowak, said the Lords was 'doing the bidding of bad bosses' and ought to 'get out of the way' of the plans. 'The sight of hereditary peers voting to block stronger workers' rights belongs in another century. It's plain wrong,' he said. Under the Lords' amendments, a requirement for employers to offer zero-hours workers a contract covering a guaranteed number of hours would be shifted to place the onus on staff to ask for such an arrangement. Protections against unfair dismissal from the first day of employment – which the government plans to reduce from the current level of two years – would be extended to six months, and changes to free up trade unions would be curtailed. The bill will return to the Commons in September for MPs to consider the amendments. The two houses then continue to vote on the changes in a process known as 'ping-pong' until a way forward is agreed. The amendments were put forward by the Lib Dem Lord Goddard, a former leader of Stockport council, and two Tory peers: Lord Hunt, who is a shadow business minister, and Lord Sharpe, a former investment banker. Hunt did not respond to a request for comment. Sharpe said: 'Keir Starmer's unemployment bill is a disaster for employees as much as it is a threat to business. Labour politicians who have never worked in business are destroying the economy. Only the Conservatives are listening to business and making the case for growth.' Goddard said he feared Labour's 'rushed bill' would be bad for workers in small businesses and on family-owned farms. 'They were badly let down by the Conservatives, and Labour seems to have a blind spot when it comes to farms and small businesses, too. 'We support the bill as a whole and have worked constructively to try to improve it. It's a shame to see the government getting upset that we didn't simply give them a blank cheque.' Employers groups welcomed the changes, saying the Lords was responding to business concerns. Helen Dickinson, the chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, said: 'Putting forward positive, practical and pragmatic amendments to the employment rights bill [will] help to protect the availability of valuable, local, part-time and entry level jobs up and down the country.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Industry chiefs have stepped up lobbying against the workers' rights changes, warning that companies were already slashing jobs and putting up prices in response to tax rises in chancellor Rachel Reeves's autumn budget. Dickinson said there was 'further to go' to curb the employment rights bill. 'Even with these amendments accepted, retailers remain worried about the consequences for jobs from other areas of the bill.' Union leaders have, though, urged ministers to stand firm. A recent mega poll of 21,000 people commissioned by the TUC found a majority of UK voters – including Conservative, Lib Dem and Reform UK supporters – backed a ban on zero-hours contracts. Nowak said the government plan included 'commonsense protections' that a majority of people wanted to see become law. 'These peers are not just out of touch, they are actively defying their own voters – and the public at large. The government must stand firm in the face of cynical attacks and deliver the employment rights bill in full.'
