Sustainable construction in the UK is now going mainstream. Good news, especially if you believe all the hype that's around at the moment about how environmentally sensitive and energy efficient the buildings of the big players in the industry already are. John Prescott seems to believe it! Just take a look at the list of characters that he has chosen to preside over the development of his Code for Sustainable Building (CSB).

Is this group not top heavy with unashamed capitalist industrialists with more interest in keeping their shareholders happy than protecting the environment? What is going on? I can only assume that John Prescott's plan is to let these folk usher in guidelines modelled to suit themselves. This may make good business sense but what use will a code of conduct be that is totally ineffective when measured against the real environmental and energy crisis that we face?

For instance, the CEO of Barratt Homes, David Pretty, has been selected to sit on this group. I've been monitoring and reporting on sustainable building activity for more than 16 years and to my knowledge Barratt Homes have not yet done anything on the sustainability front that I've felt worth reporting. If I am wrong I would be pleased to offer them space in the next edition of BFF to tell us their achievements and projects in this respect and also inform us what they plan to bring to the table that could reduce global warming and avert the impending environmental catastrophe that many predict lies not far ahead.

Another CEO selected for the group is Ian Coull of Slough Estates. He seems also to have been a little shy of telling the world of his company's environmental credentials and achievements. Ian and his company have obviously been beavering away quietly behind the scenes. Again, I extend the same invitation to them.

Most of this issue is dedicated to analysing the government's 'Sustainable Communities' (SC) plans . We have tried to include a good mix of criticism, praise, observations and fears. The SC plan, many of its proponents will say, is timely and caring but some observers are choosing to describe it as cunning and devious.

The word sustainablilty is obviously being interpreted in different ways. To me it suggests minimisation, consideration (environment and human needs), caring (for future generations) and wise (with any eye on long term resource planning and reduction). However, the SC plan and the major projects under its umbrella ooze flamboyance, showmanship and consumerism, all pandering to continued unashamed 'growth'. A thin icing of environmental measures seem to have been trowelled on but so thin that you can see right through to the consumerist, 'business as usual' core. Is the Thames Gateway project an appropriate flagship scheme for a truly sustainable plan for a city of the future?

I'm worried about how quiet all the green building organisations are about the SC plan and the SBTG. These organisations should surely be asking searching questions on behalf of their members and supporters. Are they fearful of losing existing government funding or 'queering' their pitch for future funding?

I also question the actions of WWF in all of this. The only NGO on the CSB group, I believe their plans for 1 million homes may be too ambitious. This, in my opinion, has left them looking for allies which may lead to them accepting watered down solutions. They seem to have ignored the well established grassroots movement for green building in the UK and instead have teamed up with the House Builders Federation who certainly don't, in my opinion, have a very good record among their membership of environmental care.
Hopefully all this won't prevent those of you who are already building sustainably from continuing your good work. However. I am fearful that these recent manoeuvrings between government and mainstream business may tarnish the good image of the long established sustainable building sector .

Keith Hall - editor