Gleeson seeks u-turn on green commitment

HOUSEBUILDER Gleeson is seeking to pull out of an agreement to supply some houses on a planned east Manchester estate with energy from renewable sources.

The company won consent to build 34 houses near Oldham Road in Newton Heath in April. By then it had agreed to fit out 25% of the properties to receive a minimum of 10% of their energy from renewable sources.

But last month the company submitted an application to Manchester City Council to have this requirement removed.

According to a council report (http://tinyurl.com/639vtwx) prepared before the development was considered by councillors, the renewable energy commitment helped to win planning officers’ support for the scheme.

Following a sustainability assessment the development had been given a rating of “code level 1” – well below the level 3 usually required. Gleeson argued that the extra costs required would make the estate unviable, but following “extensive negotiations” the firm received more points and agreed to the renewable energy commitment.

Gleeson, which is handling the development from its homes and regeneration division in Sheffield, is listed on the main market of the London Stock Exchange. In January it changed its corporate colours from red to green, partly to recognise a corporate shake-up but also to signal its, “focus and our continuing commitment to sustainable and ecologically responsible development”.

A spokesman for the company said: “Unfortunately, the requirements of the planning condition introduces additional costs which make the scheme financially unviable. 

“This is a scheme for low cost homes with selling prices starting as low as £115,000 for a semi detached house. 

“The properties are to be sold to local people who are on low incomes and although we generally support energy-saving proposals, they usually add cost to the construction of the house. 

“In this case, where we are trying to keep our selling prices as low as possible the addition of energy saving schemes, which often have a very long pay back period, would make the site unviable and we would not be able to carry out the development.”